object_get_child_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a meaningful risk (hanging on Transform paths) and recommends a safer alternative. However, it does not describe return shape, ordering, error behavior, or other execution characteristics, so transparency is only partial.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the purpose is stated first, and the critical warning with an alternative is front-loaded. Every word contributes to safe and correct invocation.

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 warning about Transform paths is valuable and provides a specific routing instruction. But with no annotations and no output schema, the tool description remains thin: it lacks return-format details and does not mention the object_type disambiguation parameter. Given the large sibling set, more contextual guidance would improve completeness.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies child_type via 'of a specific type' and object_path is reasonably intuitive, but it never mentions the optional object_type parameter, which exists to disambiguate paths. This is a notable gap.

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 clear operation ('Get all child objects') and the discriminator ('of a specific type'), making the primary purpose understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like object_get_child or object_child_names_of_type, but the description is specific enough to avoid basic 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?

Provides explicit when-not guidance: 'May hang when used on Transform paths; use setup_get_transforms instead.' This names an alternative and an exclusion condition. It does not cover all possible sibling choices, so it is not a 5, but the key risky case is addressed.

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