inspect_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a good job disclosing the returned data: scale, bounds, value, held/moving state, and snap points. It implies a read-only inspection but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or error behavior.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently lists the additional details returned. Every clause adds information and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 one-parameter inspection tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is largely complete because it explains the rich return contents. It still omits error behavior and does not describe the guid parameter.

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 should compensate for the undocumented guid parameter. It says the tool inspects one object but never names or explains the guid, leaving parameter meaning entirely to the bare schema field.

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 verb and resource: it returns full details for one object. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_objects by saying it gives everything list_objects gives plus additional per-object data.

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 contrast with list_objects makes the intended use clear: list_objects is for listing, while inspect_object is for deep inspection of a single object. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or prerequisites such as needing a guid.

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