cubism_get_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that data structures vary by Type, but does not cover side effects (e.g., read-only nature), permissions, error conditions, or other behaviors. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 very short (one line plus Args list) and well-structured in a docstring format. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be more concise by omitting the redundant Args section since the schema already lists parameters.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks completeness: no examples, no explanation of the object types, no mention of possible errors or versioning. For a simple tool with two required params, it is adequate but not thorough.

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%, meaning the description does not add meaning beyond parameter names. The Args section merely restates the names ('模型 UID', '对象 ID') without explaining constraints, formats, or sources. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb (获取/get) and resource (对象/object), and explicitly notes that the returned data structure varies by Type (ArtMesh, Part, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cubism_get_parameters or cubism_get_part_structure, which are more specific.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or suggest other tools for specific needs. Usage is only implied, leaving the agent to infer.

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