get_physics_info

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and implies a non-mutating read operation. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotation already provides, such as whether missing physics data causes an error or whether all physics settings are returned at once.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and target, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the readOnlyHint annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main gap is the lack of any indication about how the object is identified or whether the object must already have physics enabled.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'object' parameter. It only repeats that the operation occurs 'on an object' without clarifying whether the string is a name, path, ID, or what happens if the object does not exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('physics settings') with a clear object scope, making its purpose immediately understandable. It is distinguishable from siblings like add_physics, remove_physics, and set_physics_property because it is a getter, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 such as get_object_info, get_mesh_info, or set_physics_property. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., object must have physics added) or exclusions, leaving the selection decision entirely to inference from the verb 'get.'

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