get_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight but only says 'Return one normalized object by stable id'. It doesn't disclose behavior like error handling, whether normalization follows references, or any side effects. The term 'normalized' hints at transformation but lacks detail.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema helps, but the description is minimal. Given the large sibling set, more context about when to use this generic getter versus more specific tools (e.g., get_component) would improve completeness. As is, it's functionally adequate but with clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions stable_id. The 'path' parameter is completely unexplained. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property names, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 (return) and resource (one normalized object), with a specific identifier (stable id). It distinguishes itself from other getter tools by emphasizing 'normalized object' and 'stable id', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings.

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: use when you have a stable id and need the normalized object. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives like get_document_info or get_component, leaving usage context vague.

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