object_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this uses Inkscape's --query-all and returns real bounding boxes, implying a read-only query. However, it does not clarify output structure, whether object_ids changes the 'every object' scope, or how force_full behaves.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose, implementation detail, and suggested usage without redundancy. The most important information is 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?

The description gives enough to understand the tool's role, and the schema covers parameters. However, with no output schema, the tool does not describe what the returned bounding-box data looks like or how output relates to object_ids, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether this tool returns what it needs.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema states, which meets the baseline but does not compensate for any ambiguity around scope.

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 names a specific verb and resource: querying real bounding boxes for every object via Inkscape's --query-all. It also states the practical purpose of discovering object ids before acting on them, which clearly distinguishes it from the object_* mutation siblings.

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 gives clear usage context: use this to discover object ids before acting on objects. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the 'before acting on them' guidance makes the intended workflow obvious.

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