get_objects

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the return shape for each mode ('id, type, x, y for each' vs full detail), which implies a read-only query. It does not address permissions, rate limits, or scene-availability preconditions, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tightly written sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the mode-selection rule immediately following. The final sentence about replacing list_objects/get_object is useful orientation but is marginally meta rather than invocation-critical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by describing the return fields for both modes. With no annotations and one trivially simple parameter, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs, falling short only on preconditions and read-only confirmation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the same omit/pass semantics as the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get objects from the current game scene') and clearly delineates the two operating modes (list-all vs single-object detail). This is easily distinguished from siblings like run_lua, get_screenshot, and watch_game_state, which do entirely different things.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells the agent how to select each mode: omit 'id' to list every object, pass 'id' for full detail on one. It also explains the tool consolidates two former tools. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over siblings like run_lua for querying game state, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.