object_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the workflow cue 'before editing' and the word 'actual', hinting at runtime rather than declared state; it says nothing about what the response contains, how 'limit' bounds the output, or whether inspection is expensive on large objects.

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?

A single 15-word sentence with the verb and intent front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing parameter and sibling guidance rather than a pure virtue.

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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the definition is borderline: annotations cover the safety profile, but four undocumented parameters and an unexplained relationship to object_data_read leave real gaps. An agent could call it, but only by guessing at the meaning of 'behavior', 'frame' and 'limit'.

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% across four parameters, so the schema contributes nothing but types and bounds. The description never explains what 'object' identifies, what 'behavior' filters, or what 'frame' and 'limit' do in an inspection context, leaving the agent to infer all four from their names alone.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('an object') and enumerates what is exposed: behaviors, data channels, settings and native references. That is clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes this from close siblings such as object_data_read, api_inspect or object_hierarchy, all of which plausibly return similar object-level information.

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?

'before editing' is the only usage cue, implying a pre-mutation inspection step. There is no statement of when this should be preferred over object_data_read, objects_list or api_inspect, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given, so the agent must guess at routing.

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