describe_object

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds the fallback behavior but lacks details about performance, error handling, or output structure. The annotation covers the read-only nature adequately.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides parameter guidance. It is optimally front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter and strong annotation coverage, the description is largely complete. However, it does not specify the output format beyond 'as JSON' or whether all properties are included, which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema.

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 provides only a string type with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by giving concrete examples of valid values (res:// path, node name/path, class name), adding significant meaning for the agent.

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 the action ('dump'), the resource ('live object's properties'), and the output format ('as JSON'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying that the target can be a res:// path, node name/path, or class name with a fallback to 'describe_class'.

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 implicitly guides usage by listing valid target types and mentioning the fallback to 'describe_class', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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