check_x_object

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'check if exists', which implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state side effects, return behavior, error handling for missing objects, or whether the document is modified.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a minimal Args list. Every line adds necessary information; there is no filler, though the prose could have spent one more sentence on return semantics.

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 existence check with an output schema, the core invocation information is present. However, the undefined 'X object' and the complete absence of usage guidance or alternatives leave a noticeable gap for an agent unfamiliar with the 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It usefully explains that doc_id comes from open_document and name is the object name to check, adding real value beyond the bare parameter titles.

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 a concrete verb-resource pair: checking whether an X object exists by name within a document. It is clearer than the bare tool name because it adds the existence-check semantics and the lookup key (name), though it does not define what an 'X object' is or differentiate itself from sibling existence/search tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like field_exists or find_ctrl. No conditions, exclusions, or preconditions are given beyond the required arguments, leaving the agent to infer appropriate invocation context.

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