blender_object_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only restates the operation type. It does not disclose what properties are actually returned, how a missing object name is handled, or whether the tool has any side effects.

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?

Six words, front-loaded with the verb and object — no wasted text. It errs on the side of under-specification rather than verbosity, but as pure conciseness it is efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what 'detailed properties' means for an agent to know whether this answers its question. Set against a sibling list of over 200 tools with several overlapping object-introspection options, this one-liner leaves the agent guessing about return contents and error behavior.

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 100% — the sole parameter 'name' is documented as 'Name of the object.' The description's 'an object' maps cleanly onto that parameter but adds no extra meaning (name format, case sensitivity, scene context requirements), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific read verb ('Get'), a resource ('detailed properties'), and a clear scope ('of an object'). The 'detailed' qualifier loosely distinguishes it from blender_object_list, but it doesn't define what 'detailed properties' covers or differentiate it from blender_object_transform or blender_scene_info.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over blender_object_list, blender_object_transform, or blender_scene_info, all of which overlap in reading scene/object state. The only implied context is that a single named object is required; no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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