map_object_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, clearly indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('live scene object') but does not disclose any additional traits like what happens if the object is not found. Given annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 8-word sentence with no superfluous content. It is efficiently front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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, the existence of an output schema (which would describe return values), and the clear parameter guidance, the description is reasonably complete. It could briefly mention error cases (e.g., object not found) but is sufficient for an agent.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds crucial meaning to the single parameter 'object_id' by specifying it can be a name or numeric ID. This goes beyond the schema's anyOf type definition, helping the agent understand allowed values.

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 specifies the verb 'Read', the resource 'one live scene object', and the identification method 'by name or numeric ID'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like map_object_list (which reads multiple objects) and map_object_create (which creates).

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 use when needing to read a single object by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like map_object_list (for multiple objects) or other read tools. There is no mention of context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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