Get Object

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a read operation, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds a bit of return behavior by saying it dumps properties and shape stats, but it does not explain output format, failure behavior, or whether the shape stats are computed live. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and usage context with no filler. The main action is 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 a simple read-only tool with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is close to adequate. However, with no output schema, it leaves 'properties' and 'shape stats' undefined and does not mention error conditions or whether a valid handle is required, so some information is missing.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lone 'handle' parameter, but it only repeats the word handle without explaining what a handle is, how to obtain one, or what object types are accepted. This is minimal guidance at best.

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 states a specific action ('Dump') and a resource ('a handle's properties + shape stats'), making the tool's function clear. It partially distinguishes from the large sibling set by framing itself as a fallback when no dedicated tool exists, though it does not name any sibling.

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?

'Useful when no dedicated tool exposes what you need' gives a clear condition for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the fallback framing provides adequate selection guidance.

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