get_object_details

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which already indicates a safe read operation, and the description aligns with this by saying 'Show detailed information'. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as what constitutes 'detailed' or how missing objects are handled. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description meets the minimum without adding value.

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 front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant wording, earning full marks 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 tool's simplicity, an output schema (mentioned in context signals), and the fully described input schema, the description is largely adequate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings, which would improve completeness. The missing usage context is the main gap.

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%, with each parameter (schema_name, object_name, object_type) having a clear description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. object_type's default value and allowed values are already in the schema.

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 'Show detailed information about a database object' uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('database object'), making the core purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_objects' (which likely enumerates objects) by focusing on details of a single object, but it does not explicitly state this differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention that this tool is for inspecting a specific object as opposed to listing all objects, nor does it describe any prerequisites or exclusions. The user must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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