get_physics_info

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates that this is a read-only operation. The description is consistent with that and adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens if the object has no physics settings or the exact nature of the returned data. It does not contradict the annotation.

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, clear sentence: 'Get physics settings on an object.' It is concise, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no fluff or redundant information. This is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'physics settings' encompasses and does not mention edge cases like missing physics components. It could be more explicit about the scope of the returned setting.

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 only one parameter 'object' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description merely states the action occurs 'on an object', which adds minimal meaning but does not explain how to specify the object (e.g., by name, path, or ID) or what constitutes a valid object. The description fails to fully compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Get physics settings on an object' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb (get) and resource (physics settings on an object). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_physics, set_physics_property, and get_object_info by focusing specifically on retrieving physics-related settings.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, common scenarios, or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the verb 'get'.

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