get_sui_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' entail (e.g., format, depth). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get object details by ID'—front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, avoiding unnecessary elaboration.

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 and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. However, for a tool with 3 parameters (including a nested object) and no output schema, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral traits, making it adequate but with clear gaps in completeness.

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 clear descriptions for parameters like 'objectId' and 'network', and the 'options' object well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the significance of options or network choices. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 'Get object details by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('object details'), specifying it's by object ID. It's specific enough to understand the core function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sui_owned_objects' or 'get_sui_transaction' which might also retrieve object-related data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_sui_owned_objects' (for listing objects) or 'get_sui_transaction' (for transaction-related object data), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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