get_object_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose what that entails (e.g., object type, properties, location), whether it's read-only (implied by 'get'), error handling for missing objects, or performance considerations. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a parameter explanation. Both sentences are relevant, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for clarity), but it's efficiently sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (what 'detailed information' includes), error conditions, and behavioral context. For a read operation in a 3D modeling environment, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'object_name' as 'The name of the object to get information about'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare title. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, existence requirements), so it's only partially helpful.

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 verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific object in the Blender scene'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_scene_info' by focusing on individual objects rather than the entire scene. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other object-related tools (none exist in the sibling list), so it's not a perfect 5.

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., whether the object must exist in the scene), compare to 'get_scene_info' for broader context, or specify use cases. This leaves the agent without contextual direction.

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