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. 'Get object structure details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. The description lacks critical behavioral context needed for safe and effective use.

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—a single phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, though at the expense of detail. Every word earns its place, making it structurally sound despite being under-specified.

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 complexity implied by sibling tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'structure details' includes, how it differs from similar tools, or what the return values are. For a tool with no behavioral annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('objectUrl' and 'version'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, format expectations, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 structure details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'objectStructure' with minimal elaboration. It specifies a verb ('Get') and a resource ('object structure details'), but lacks specificity about what 'structure details' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'objectTypes', 'ddicElement', or 'classComponents'. The purpose is vague and doesn't distinguish this tool from alternatives.

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. There are no explicit or implied instructions on context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools related to objects (e.g., 'objectTypes', 'ddicElement', 'classComponents'), the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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