get_object_info

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — that name matching can be partial, not just exact — and that results include behaviours and their property names. It never states that this is a safe read operation, nor what happens when a partial name matches many objects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the match-mode detail appears early. The phrase 'behaviours with their property names' is slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity but the sentence earns its place.

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?

For a small read-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return content reasonably well. It leaves out the truncation behavior implied by 'max_properties' and what happens on ambiguous partial matches, which an agent would need before calling it reliably.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for 'name' (exact or partial matching) but says nothing about 'max_properties', which is undocumented in both the schema and the description — a significant gap for a 2-parameter tool.

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+resource ('Describe objects by exact or partial name') and enumerates what comes back (type, id, behaviours with property names), which clearly distinguishes it from the UI/action/log siblings. It falls short of 5 only because 'describe' versus 'get info' is slightly ambiguous about whether it returns a schema-like summary or runtime values.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative — yet siblings such as get_scene_info plausibly overlap for object introspection. The only implicit usage signal is the mention of exact or partial name matching; an agent must infer the rest.

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