get_dop_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It says only 'get detailed data' without stating whether the operation is read-only, what 'detailed data' includes, whether an active simulation is required, or how errors are surfaced. Very little behavioral context is supplied.

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 short and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, followed by a brief Args block. No filler is present, though the Args block largely repeats schema parameter names and titles. Efficient but not maximally informative per word.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return data, usage context, and how it differs from sibling tools. It instead says only 'detailed data' and lists two parameters. It omits when to choose this over list_dop_objects or get_dop_field, and what the returned detail actually contains.

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 schema only provides titles like 'Node Path' and 'Object Name'. The description adds that node_path is a DOP network node path and object_name is a DOP object name, which is useful but still lacks format examples or lookup behavior. It only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: get detailed data for a DOP object. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling DOP tools such as list_dop_objects, get_dop_field, or get_dop_relationships. Clear purpose, but sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. The description only restates the tool's name and lists arguments. For a tool surrounded by many DOP-related siblings, this leaves selection entirely to inference.

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