object_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope by saying it returns comprehensive object data including submeshes and their materials, but it does not describe ref resolution or any other behavior beyond that scope.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with a compact enumeration of returned data categories. There is no filler, and the important scope statement comes first.

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?

The output schema exists and annotations already carry the read-only/idempotent profile, so return-value explanation is not strictly required. However, the description leaves the required 'ref' identifier undefined and gives no selection guidance among many object-related siblings, which is a meaningful completeness gap.

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?

The only required parameter is 'ref', and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never explains whether ref is an integer ID, a name, a path, or another identifier, nor how the anyOf integer/string union should be used.

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 identifies the resource as a single object and enumerates the object data returned: transform, pivot, bounds, mesh/camera/light settings, and submeshes with materials. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb and does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as object_attributes or object_find.

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 phrase 'Everything about one object' implies a broad inspection use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus object_attributes, object_find, scene_tree, or scene_list_objects. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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