get_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose helpful behavioral details: it returns both the object and a screenshot, and explains that include_screenshot=False saves tokens. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, but the retrieval semantics and return wording make that a safe inference.

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 compact and well-organized: a clear one-sentence purpose, a practical use statement, an Args section, and a Returns line. There is no unnecessary fluff or repeated schema enums.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers required parameters, optional parameters/defaults, and return shape. It is mostly complete, though it could mention behavior when include_screenshot is false and how the returned object data is structured.

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 schema gives 0% parameter descriptions, so the Args section compensates by explaining all four parameters: doc_name, obj_name, include_screenshot, and view_name. It adds useful meaning such as token-saving behavior for include_screenshot and return-screenshot orientation for view_name.

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?

Description clearly states it gets an object from a document and clarifies that this is for inspecting its properties before checking or editing them. This aligns with the sibling set but does not explicitly distinguish it from get_objects or get_view.

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?

It gives a clear intended use case: get the properties of an object to see what can be checked or edited. It does not mention exclusions or compare with alternatives, but the context is specific enough to guide basic selection.

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