get_object_info

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state side effects or error behavior. However, the verb 'get' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the description lists only return content, which provides some transparency. Still, it does not disclose potential errors or non-mutating guarantees.

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, concise sentence that efficiently lists all the included information categories. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the key aspects of what the tool returns, but it does not specify the output format or structure, nor does it address edge cases like nonexistent objects. Given that it is a getter, the enumeration of return content is fairly complete, though not exhaustive regarding 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 single parameter 'name' is not described in the schema or the tool description. While it is likely the object name, the description does not clarify its format, required uniqueness, or whether it refers to an object in the current scene. This leaves some ambiguity.

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 that this tool retrieves detailed information about an object, enumerating specific aspects such as transform, world position, parenting, collections, modifiers, constraints, material slots, mesh statistics, and custom properties. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from simpler listing tools.

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 implies usage when detailed object info is needed, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'list_objects' or 'get_modifier_settings'. There is no explicit comparison or condition, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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