get_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns both the object and a screenshot, and the verb 'get' implies a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not disclose error handling or auth requirements, which for a getter is acceptable.

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 brief, well-structured with Args/Returns sections, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior — retrieving an object and its properties — and mentions the return value (object + screenshot). It lacks explicit disambiguation from get_objects and does not explain the screenshot format, but for a simple getter with two string parameters, this is sufficient.

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 Args section adds minimal context beyond the schema: doc_name is 'the name of the document to get the object from' and obj_name is 'the name of the object to get.' While this clarifies the roles, it does not specify formats, possible values, or the relationship to other object retrieval tools, so it only partially compensates for 0% 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 clearly states it retrieves a single object from a document and explains its purpose: inspecting properties to decide what can be edited. The singular 'get an object' distinguishes it from sibling get_objects (plural) and get_parts_list, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 an explicit use case: 'use this tool to get the properties of an object to see what you can check or edit.' This gives clear context for when to invoke it, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when get_objects might be more appropriate.

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