get_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'The object and a screenshot of the object', which adds some behavioral context beyond basic retrieval. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, permission requirements, error conditions, or how the screenshot is formatted/delivered. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 reasonably concise with three distinct sections: purpose statement, usage hint, and parameter/return documentation. Each sentence adds value, though the second sentence could be more direct. The structure with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' headings is clear and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description provides basic parameter semantics and mentions the return includes both the object and a screenshot. However, for a tool with no annotations and sibling tools that suggest a document/object manipulation context, it should better explain behavioral aspects like whether this is safe/read-only, how it differs from 'get_objects', and what 'object' means in this domain.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics: 'doc_name: The name of the document to get the object from' and 'obj_name: The name of the object to get'. This clarifies what each parameter represents, but doesn't provide format expectations, constraints, or examples. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is minimally adequate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get an object from a document' and 'get the properties of an object'. It specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('object from a document'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_objects' or 'get_view', which appear to be related retrieval operations.

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 implied usage guidance: 'to get the properties of an object to see what you can check or edit' suggests this is for inspection before potential modifications. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_objects' (plural) or 'get_view', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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