object_attributes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information (only 'plain' attributes, values are type-specific and some are expanded, e.g. camera lens/limits/postEffect) but says nothing about failure behavior, unresolvable refs, or whether unset/derived attributes are omitted.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and then the sibling relationship. The type list is compact and earns its place; only the parenthetical 'lens, limits, postEffect expanded' is slightly cryptic in phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the type enumeration covers what comes back. However, with a required but entirely undocumented `ref` and no guidance on interplay with the many sibling getters, the definition is adequate but leaves the main invocation risk unresolved.

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% and the single `ref` parameter is documented only by its title, accepting either integer or string. The description never explains whether ref is an object name, a path, or an index, which is the one thing an agent must get right to call this tool — a real gap that the description should have closed.

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 states a specific resource (an object's plain attributes with current values) and scopes it by object type (light, camera, sky, fog, shadow catcher, backdrop, mesh). The read verb is only implicit ('Every plain attribute of an object...'), but the closing sentence ties it explicitly to the write counterpart object_set_attributes, which distinguishes it from object_get and the setter.

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?

The line 'These are the names object_set_attributes takes' strongly implies the intended workflow (read here, write there), but it never states when to call this versus object_get, scene_info, or the type-specific getters like camera_get/sky_get/fog_get that also appear as siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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