get_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return behavior (object plus screenshot), explains that include_screenshot can be disabled to save tokens, and describes view_name affecting the screenshot. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'get' and the inspection purpose imply it.

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 an opening summary, a usage justification, a clear Args list, and a Returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers tool purpose, parameter semantics, and return values. However, it does not specify the format of 'the object' or error conditions, leaving some ambiguity that could affect agent reliability.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain all parameters and does so: doc_name and obj_name are self-explanatory, include_screenshot includes token-saving guidance, and view_name is described as affecting the screenshot orientation. This fully compensates for the missing schema coverage.

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 states 'Get an object from a document' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies the tool's purpose: 'to get the properties of an object to see what you can check or edit.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_objects (plural) and get_view.

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 gives a use case ('to see what you can check or edit') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It implies usage but lacks direct guidance on choosing between get_object, get_objects, or get_view.

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