object_select

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '정보를 조회합니다' (retrieve information) implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what information is returned, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, though it could potentially be more structured if it included additional context about usage or behavior.

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?

Given that this is a read operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (object properties, metadata, etc.), how the selection affects the system state, or what happens if the object ID doesn't exist. For a tool that presumably returns data, more context about the response format would be helpful.

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 description mentions 'ID로' (by ID) which aligns with the single 'objectId' parameter in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage (the parameter already has a clear description '객체 ID' - object ID), the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '객체를 ID로 선택하고 정보를 조회합니다' (Select an object by ID and retrieve information) clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('선택하고 정보를 조회합니다' - select and retrieve information) and resource ('객체' - object). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'object_list' which also deals with objects, or explain how selection differs from other object-related operations like 'object_move' or 'object_scale'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for retrieving specific object details) versus when to use 'object_list' (for listing all objects) or other object manipulation tools. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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