objectStructure

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 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'structure details' includes (e.g., metadata, schema, dependencies). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase 'Get object structure details', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than effective communication, though it meets the criteria for conciseness.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex structural data. It fails to explain what 'structure details' entail, how results are formatted, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for 'objectUrl' and 'version'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 structure details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'objectStructure' with minimal added context. While it indicates a retrieval action ('Get'), it lacks specificity about what 'object structure' entails or what resource it operates on, making it vague compared to sibling tools like 'getObjectSource' or 'objectTypes'.

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. With many sibling tools like 'getObjectSource', 'objectTypes', and 'findDefinition' that might retrieve related information, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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