blender_get_object_data

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds context by explaining that the 'include' parameter controls which data is returned to avoid context overflow, and that it fetches data for a single object. This goes beyond annotations but is not extremely detailed, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 very concise: three short sentences that cover purpose, usage guidance, and exclusions. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 moderate complexity (single object data with many include options) and the presence of full schema with annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the core function and how to control output, though it does not detail what each include option returns. However, the schema’s enum values provide enough context. With no output schema, a description could add more, but the current one suffices.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description mentions the 'include' parameter's purpose and default value, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 'Get detailed data for a single object' and specifies the use of the 'include' parameter to control data. It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning what not to use for (armature bone data, node tree structure), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this when: you need details about a specific object' and 'Do NOT use for: armature bone data (use blender_get_armature_data), node tree structure (use blender_get_node_tree).' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use alternatives.

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