describe_object

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it resolves live nodes during gameplay, reports the scope in the answer, and clarifies that edited-scene and running-game paths share syntax but differ in meaning. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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, but every clause adds value: the first states the core action, the second explains target variants, live resolution, the runtime_get_property relationship, and the scope-reporting behavior. No redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it explains the input format, the resolution logic, the fallback, and the return behavior (JSON properties with scope indication). It gives the agent all necessary information 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 input schema provides only a bare 'target' string with 0% description coverage, so the description carries full responsibility. It thoroughly explains what target can be: a res:// path, a node name/path in the open scene, or a class name with fallback to describe_class. It also explains live-node resolution, fully compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Dump a live object's properties as JSON.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by defining the target resolution scope (res:// path, node path, class name fallback) and explicitly connecting to runtime_get_property for live-node resolution.

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 clear context on when to use the tool by enumerating accepted target types and noting fallback behavior to describe_class. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name a preferred alternative for getting class definitions or single properties, so it stops short of a 5.

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