get_object_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Return detailed information' without disclosing what 'detailed' entails, whether the operation is read-only beyond the implied 'get', or what happens if the object doesn't exist. The minimal verb phrase offers little behavioral context beyond the tool's basic function.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient and appropriately sized for a getter tool, though it sacrifices semantic depth. Structure is clean and to the point.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for effective use. It fails to clarify what kind of object 'name' refers to, what 'detailed information' includes, or how this differs from other get_*_info tools. The agent would likely need to inspect the output schema or guess the parameter semantics, making this inadequate for a tool among many similar siblings.

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 schema has one required parameter 'name' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., object name as a string), its format, or any constraints. With zero coverage and no compensation from the description, the parameter semantics are completely undocumented.

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 a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('detailed information about a specific object'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_world_info or get_scene_info, but the term 'object' is generic and doesn't specify which kind of object (mesh, camera, light, etc.), leaving some ambiguity. It is functional but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling get_*_info tools (get_camera_info, get_material_info, get_mesh_stats, etc.). The description does not mention context, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which 'object' type this applies to.

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