get_object_by_ref

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states what data is returned (all attributes, tabular sections, flags), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or error behavior, but the 'get' verb and return content sufficiently convey non-destructiveness.

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?

Single sentence with clear, front-loaded structure. States purpose and scope concisely without extraneous words. Every part adds value.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers input and output scope adequately. However, it lacks specification of return format (e.g., JSON structure) and behavior on missing object, but overall sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%; the parameter descriptions already explain full_name as object type with example and guid as UUID. The overall description rephrases this but adds no new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves full object data by type and UUID, listing specific attributes (all details, tabular parts, posted flag, deletion mark). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_list (which lists objects) and get_object_attributes (which likely returns only attributes).

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 use when full object data is needed by type+UUID, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, though sibling tools exist for other operations.

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