get_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior (object properties, screenshot only when requested) and the default for with_screenshot. However, it does not mention error handling, side effects (though likely none), or any prerequisites, which is a gap for a tool without annotations.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides useful information, and the layout is easy to scan.

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 simple getter with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality (parameters, return value, screenshot behavior). However, it does not address potential error conditions or clarify when to use this tool versus get_objects, which are relevant contextual gaps given the sibling tools present.

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 explains each parameter clearly (doc_name, obj_name, with_screenshot) and provides the default for with_screenshot. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema and effectively documents all parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('an object from a document'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_objects (plural), but the singular naming and description imply a single-object retrieval.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_objects or get_view. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the parameter names and sibling context.

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