get_app_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool calls 'GetObject and GetLayout sequentially via WebSocket', which implies network operations and potential latency, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'layout' entails. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('Get specific object layout') and includes implementation detail. It's efficient with zero waste, though the implementation detail might be unnecessary for clarity. Structure is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that performs retrieval operations (implied by 'Get'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'object layout' returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured support, more context is needed to be adequately helpful.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('app_id' and 'object_id') documented in the schema as 'Application GUID' and 'Object ID to retrieve'. The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool 'Get specific object layout' which indicates a retrieval action on an object layout resource. However, it's vague about what 'object layout' means (e.g., UI layout, data structure) and doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_app_sheet_objects' or 'get_app_field'. The phrase 'by calling GetObject and GetLayout sequentially via WebSocket' adds implementation detail but doesn't clarify the purpose further.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for retrieving layout details vs. other object properties) or refer to sibling tools like 'get_app_sheet_objects' for different use cases. It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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