get_object_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to specify return format/structure, what happens if the object_name is not found, or whether this operation has any performance impact on the Blender session. Lacks critical behavioral context for a data retrieval tool.

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?

Efficiently structured with purpose stated first, followed by parameter documentation. No filler text. The inline parameter documentation is unconventional for MCP (normally belongs in schema) but is necessary given the 0% schema coverage. Minor deduction for not indicating that the object_name must exactly match an existing object.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter tool, but gaps remain. Without an output schema, the description should ideally enumerate what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., location, rotation, scale, mesh statistics). Missing error contract for non-existent objects. Sufficient for basic invocation but leaves return value structure opaque.

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% (no description fields in schema properties), but the description compensates by documenting the single parameter: 'object_name: The name of the object to get information about.' This adds necessary semantic meaning beyond the schema's title 'Object Name', though it doesn't specify case sensitivity or whether partial names are accepted.

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 specific action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('specific object in the Blender scene'). Clearly scopes to object-level data, distinguishing it from sibling get_scene_info which handles scene-level data. However, 'detailed information' remains somewhat vague regarding exactly what attributes are returned (transform, geometry, materials).

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_blender_code (which could also query object data) or get_scene_info. Does not mention prerequisites such as the object needing to exist in the scene, or error handling if it doesn't.

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