get_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'dump' implies a read operation, but the description never states that it is read-only, whether it mutates state, what permissions it needs, or how large/heavy the returned payload might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Slightly informal ('dump') but structurally efficient.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns and its safety profile. It gestures at 'properties + shape stats' but leaves the central term 'handle' undefined and says nothing about read-only behavior or return shape, so it is not complete enough for reliable 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'handle' is undocumented in the schema. The description only repeats the word 'handle' without explaining what a handle is, its expected format, or where an agent obtains one. It adds almost no meaning beyond the schema's parameter name.

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 verb (dump) and a resource (a handle's properties + shape stats), which is more than a tautology. However, it is vague about what 'properties' and 'shape stats' actually include and does not differentiate from siblings like list_objects, check_shape, or mass_properties, so an agent cannot tell exactly what this returns versus those tools.

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 fallback heuristic, implying it should be used only when no specialized sibling covers the need. This is weaker than naming specific alternatives, but it does provide a conditional context for use rather than none at all.

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