Get remote object properties

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

With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It indicates the operation is a read ('Read properties') but does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., active debugger session), error conditions, or whether the operation has side effects. The 'selected Raw target' phrase is ambiguous and not elaborated.

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 clear sentence that states the core purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and successfully conveys the essential function in minimal space.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry significant explanatory weight. It only provides a high-level purpose, leaving the meaning of 'selected Raw target' ambiguous and failing to specify input requirements, return behavior, or any constraints. This is insufficient for reliable tool invocation.

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 schema covers 6 parameters, but the description provides no explanation for any of them except an implicit reference to objectId. Terms like ownProperties, generatePreview, accessorPropertiesOnly, sessionId, and targetSessionId are left undefined, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 identifies the action (read properties), the target (Runtime remote object ID), and the context (selected Raw target). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_scope_variables_enhanced which deal with scope variables rather than direct object IDs.

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 have a remote object ID and need its properties, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as debugger_evaluate or get_scope_variables_enhanced. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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