object_get_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses the core behavior (returns parent path, excluding object name). It does not state side effects (likely none as a getter) or edge cases such as what happens for root objects or invalid paths. This is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks depth.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the key scoping fact ('excluding object name') is front-loaded in the parenthetical. It is as concise as possible while still conveying the core semantic.

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 simple getter, the description gives enough to attempt a call, but there is no mention of the return format, error behavior, or when to set object_type. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, slightly more context would make it complete. The schema partially compensates via object_type's description.

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 description adds no parameter-level detail. object_path has no schema description and the description does not explain what value it expects (e.g., full path), while object_type's disambiguation role is only in the schema enum/description. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented object_path but does not.

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 verb ('Get'), resource (parent path of an IC-CAP object), and an explicit exclusion (excluding object name). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like object_get_fullname and other object_* getters. There is no doubt about the tool's function.

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 implies a use case (obtain the parent path rather than the full path), but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like object_get_fullname or state when object_type should be supplied. There are no when-not scenarios or alternative routing, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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