xem_doi_tuong

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'Xem' does communicate a non-mutating read. It also discloses the returned fields (position, size, material, structural diagram), which is real value since there is no output schema. However, it omits error behavior when the object is not found and any access/permission expectations.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the concrete list of attributes. Nothing is wasted, though the single-line format leaves no room for the missing guidance.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, which is the main thing an agent needs. It is nonetheless incomplete on the meaning of the required 'ten' argument and on failure behavior.

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 single parameter 'ten' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and it largely does not – it never explains that 'ten' is the object name used to identify the target. Only indirectly inferable from the phrase 'mot doi tuong'.

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?

States a specific verb ('Xem chi tiet' – view details) plus the resource ('mot doi tuong' – an object) and enumerates the returned attributes (position, size, material, structural diagram). This clearly separates it from the mutating siblings sua_doi_tuong/xoa_doi_tuong, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the read-only nature and the presence of sua_doi_tuong/xoa_doi_tuong in the sibling set make 'inspect an object' the obvious use case, but the description never states when to prefer this over xem_canh or when-not to use it. Minimum viable, no explicit routing guidance.

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