get_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds context beyond the schema: 'set False for a lighter response on complex objects' hints at potential performance concerns, and 'shape volume/area/bounding box' clarifies what geometry measurements are included. It does not cover error behavior or permissions, but for a simple inspection tool, this is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded summary ensures the agent immediately understands the tool's core purpose.

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 output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, the description covers the main elements and optional flags. The missing document parameter explanation is a slight gap, but overall the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 explains three of the four parameters with semantics beyond the schema: 'name: object Name or Label' clarifies the input, while include_properties and include_shape include rationales for setting them to False. The document parameter is not mentioned, but it is optional with a default null, making the omission a minor gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect one object: all properties, plus shape volume/area/bounding box.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_objects, which lists objects, and get_selection, which returns the current selection.

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 when to use the tool by focusing on a single object's detailed inspection and explains how to adjust flags ('set False for a lighter response'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when to prefer one of the sibling tools, such as list_objects for overviews or get_selection for the current selection.

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