object-transform_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read', implying non-destructiveness, but does not describe return format, coordinate space, or behavior on invalid object names. This is minimal.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded and direct. It avoids fluff, though it is under-specified in other dimensions; the brevity itself is acceptable.

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?

With 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description still lacks key details such as what the returned transform state contains and how the object is uniquely identified. This creates a meaningful gap for an agent expecting actionable information.

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 lone parameter 'object' only has a title 'Object name'. The description does not clarify whether the parameter expects a name, path, or ID, nor does it add semantics beyond the generic 'an object'.

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 uses a clear verb ('Read') and identifies the resource ('an object's transform state'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like object-transform_set and object-transform_apply. However, it does not elaborate on what 'transform state' encompasses (e.g., location, rotation, scale), leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as object-transform_set or object-origin_set. The description provides no contextual cues, exclusions, or mention of alternatives.

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