iota_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'fetches' data (implying a read-only operation) and lists return fields (owner, type, version, content), but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), performance (e.g., latency or rate limits), or side effects (e.g., network calls). This leaves gaps for a tool interacting with on-chain data.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently state the action ('Fetch on-chain object data by ID') and return values ('Returns owner, type, version, and content'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching on-chain data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and return fields but lacks details on behavior (e.g., error cases, network dependencies) and output structure. This is adequate for a simple read operation but has clear gaps for reliable agent use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'object_id' documented as 'IOTA object ID (0x...)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it doesn't explain format details (e.g., hex encoding requirements) or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Fetch on-chain object data by ID' specifies the action (fetch), resource (on-chain object data), and key identifier (ID). It distinguishes from siblings like 'iota_objects_by_owner' (which fetches by owner) and 'iota_transaction' (which handles transactions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'iota_coins' or 'iota_move_build', which might involve different data types or operations.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid object ID), exclusions (e.g., not for fetching multiple objects), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'iota_objects_by_owner' for owner-based queries. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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