inspect_object

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

The description mentions that SoftObjectProperty values are skipped, which is a notable limitation. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, though this is implied by the inspection nature. No annotations are provided to contradict or supplement this.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence and separate parameter notes. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more explicit about return format or usage comparisons without becoming verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must indicate what the tool returns. It states 'Every reflected property of an object with its current value', which implies a map or listing, but does not specify the exact structure (e.g., dictionary vs list). It also covers the skipping behavior, but lacks details on error handling or edge cases.

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 explains pattern (optional Lua pattern) and include_super (defaults to False), providing examples. It does not explicitly explain ref, though it is clearly the object reference from context. The schema provides titles and defaults, but the description adds meaning for only two of the three parameters.

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 clearly states it inspects every reflected property of an object with its current value, and it specifies usage on CDOs and actors. This distinguishes it from get_property (single property) and find_object (search for objects), though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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?

It gives some guidance on when to use (on CDOs and actors) and how to filter with pattern, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like get_property or dump. The context implies a bulk inspection, but the description does not state when to prefer this over get_property or when to avoid it.

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