get_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the object and a screenshot, adding useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, though the 'get' wording implies 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and neatly structured with separate Args and Returns sections. Every word contributes value.

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 simple two-parameter getter, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return behavior, and an output schema exists to detail the return type. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation or usage caveats, but nothing critical is missing for a basic read operation.

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 schema provides only parameter titles with no descriptions, so the description compensates by explaining doc_name ('name of the document to get the object from') and obj_name ('name of the object to get'). This gives clear meaning beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Get an object from a document' and further explains it retrieves properties for inspection. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_objects (plural) and get_view by focusing on a single object.

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 clear context: use it to retrieve object properties to see what can be checked or edited. It implies a pre-edit inspection usage, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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