get_object_by_ref

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving 'full details' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if ref is invalid), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. This is a read operation, but the description lacks sufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a brief utility note. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'full details' includes, error cases, or how return_fields affects output. For a read tool in a complex system like Infoblox, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 documents both parameters (ref and return_fields). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'ref' is for object lookup and 'return_fields' might control output, but doesn't explain syntax or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('any Infoblox object'), specifying it retrieves full details. It distinguishes from siblings like get_network_details or get_all_records_in_zone by being reference-based rather than name/zone-based, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 reference string ('Useful for retrieving full details of an object'), suggesting it's for direct lookup rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. other get_* tools (e.g., get_network_details for networks by name) or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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