Nsc Get Object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' makes the read-only nature reasonably clear and it discloses the shape of the returned data (common vs type-specific), but it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or what happens for an out-of-range object number.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though extremely terse given the tool's role in a large sibling set.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description does at least characterize the return payload's two categories. It remains thin on how the object is identified relative to sibling read tools, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents 'One-based object number'. The description adds no format, range, or indexing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Names a specific verb (get) and resource (non-sequential object), and adds that the return includes common and type-specific data. It is distinguishable from sibling zemax_nsc_get_object_parameter, but the description never states that distinction explicitly, so the agent must infer it from the names.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than zemax_nsc_get_object_parameter or zemax_nsc_summary, and no prerequisites or context. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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