get_object_properties

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful return details, including properties and property_count. However, it does not describe what happens for missing objects, case sensitivity, or any operational limits, which are relevant for an unannotated read tool.

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 structured with an opening summary, Args list, and Returns list, making it scannable. It contains redundancy such as 'detailed properties,' 'all properties and values,' and 'complete configuration details,' but it is not excessively long.

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 three-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential request and response shape. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps around when to use the tool, what counts as a valid object_type, and behavior when the object is not found.

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 description needed to define all three parameters. It lists them, but the definitions are largely tautological: 'model_id: The model_id of the EnergyPlus model' and 'object_type: EnergyPlus object type.' No examples, formats, or allowed values are provided, so the description adds little meaning beyond the parameter names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed properties of a specific EnergyPlus object' and 'Retrieves all properties and values for a specific object in the epJSON model.' The wording makes clear this is a direct lookup by known object identity, which reasonably separates it from sibling search/list tools even though no sibling is named.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_epjson_objects or list_objects_by_type. It does not state prerequisites such as already knowing the exact object_type and object_name, nor does it mention when this lookup would be inappropriate.

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