get_object_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return contents (name, bbox, basic properties, subshape counts), which is useful. However, it does not mention the purpose or cost of 'precise_bbox', nor any prerequisites or side effects, which would be valuable behavioral context.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource. It lists examples of the returned info without unnecessary words, achieving maximum 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 need no detailed explanation, and the description gives a good summary. However, it lacks guidance on parameters, and given the many sibling tools, usage context is not fully addressed. The tool is simple, so this is acceptable but not complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter. 'object_ref' and 'precise_bbox' are somewhat self-explanatory from names, but the description fails to add meaning or clarify their usage or impact, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('GEOM object info') and lists concrete items (name, bbox, basic properties, subshape counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mesh_info or list_study_objects.

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 when to use the tool (when you need an object's info), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. With siblings like get_mesh_info and list_study_objects, more explicit guidance would be helpful, but the context is still understandable.

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