Object Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that the ID is 'persistent', implying stable references across sessions, but says nothing about error behavior on a missing/invalid ID or how large the returned object is. With the output schema present, the remaining gap is modest, so a 3 is fair.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, stating the action, the object domain, and the lookup key. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and for a one-parameter read tool the definition is close to sufficient. The gaps are the missing usage/routing guidance and the vague resource name 'object' relative to a large sibling set of list/get tools.

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% for the single object_id parameter, so the description must compensate. Saying 'persistent ID' adds real meaning (durable, reusable reference) beyond the bare string type, but it does not explain the ID's format or where the agent obtains it, so it only partly fills the 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 ('Retrieve') and resource, and usefully clarifies that an 'object' is a saved dataset or resolved plan, retrieved by persistent ID. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as objects_list, recipe_get, or dataset_inspect, leaving ambiguity about which getter to pick.

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 mention of the alternative objects_list, and no note on prerequisites or what happens if the ID is unknown. The agent must infer the retrieval-by-ID pattern entirely from the schema.

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