get_object_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It lists the returned properties (location, rotation, scale, etc.), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose error behavior, whether the tool is read-only, performance implications, or requirements like the object must exist. More context would be beneficial.

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 concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a bullet-point list of returned properties. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words. Every part adds value.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a good list of returned properties. However, it lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., object must exist), error handling, or side effects (none expected but not stated). Given the context of no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but has gaps.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'name', and the schema has no description for it. The description adds meaning by stating 'by name', clarifying the parameter identifies the object. However, it lacks specifics like whether the name is case-sensitive or if partial matches are allowed. For a single parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description adds value but could be more precise.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific object. The verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific object by name' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_scene_info or get_hierarchy by focusing on object-level properties.

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 implies usage when you need detailed object properties, but it does not explicitly provide when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives like get_hierarchy or list_* tools. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are given.

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