get_object_details

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'gets' metadata, implying a read operation, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, whether it requires special permissions, or what 'detailed metadata' includes. No side effects or constraints are mentioned. Given zero annotation support, this is a significant gap for an agent relying on the description alone.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential action and target immediately. It is appropriately short and front-loaded, earning a top score 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description omits any mention of which object types are supported or how this differs from sibling getters, which is relevant given the large sibling set. The minimalism might be acceptable for a simple getter, but the lack of guidance on when to choose this over specialized tools makes it incomplete for effective selection.

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%, so the schema already explains both parameters and even lists the valid object_type codes. The description adds no additional semantic depth beyond what is in the schema. Per the guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Get detailed metadata') and resource ('a specific BW object'). It is distinct from the siblings in that it is a generic getter, but it doesn't explicitly name any alternative or what makes it different from the more specialized getters like get_infoobject_details. It distinguishes by being general, which is clear enough for an agent to understand its primary scope.

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 the specialized sibling tools (e.g., get_infoobject_details, get_transformation_details). The description does not mention selection criteria or situations where this generic getter is preferred. The agent is left to infer from the schema that it handles multiple object types, but the description offers no explicit routing or exclusions.

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