ap_get_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: output is limited to visibility and transform, names are matched against paint objects, and enumeration is not supported. It does not cover error behavior if a name is not found, but 'Describe' sufficiently implies a read-only operation.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and the NOTE earns its place by conveying a critical limitation. There is no wasted wording.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns, how lookup matching works, and the important enumeration limitation. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 schema already covers the single parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by saying names are matched against paint objects and used for lookup, but it does not add format, case-sensitivity, or failure semantics beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('a scene object by name'), and specifies what is returned: visibility and transform. It also distinguishes itself from ap_get_main_object by noting there is no enumerating binding, so an agent can tell which tool to use.

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?

It explicitly explains when this tool is appropriate: look up objects by name when they are paint objects, and it names the alternative (ap_get_main_object) for the main object case. This gives clear routing guidance with no inference required.

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