object_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a safe read operation but does not disclose behavior like error handling, truncation via max_chars, or behavior with invalid references. The constraint 'exact ObjectRef entries' adds some transparency about required inputs.

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 a single, compact sentence that immediately conveys the core action and scope. It uses no unnecessary words and is well-suited for quick parsing.

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 tool has a nested request schema and output schema, but the description gives only the core use case. It omits the optional configurable aspects (like property selection, character limits, relation inclusion), leaving the agent to infer those from the schema. While not incomplete to the point of unusability, more context would help.

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%, yet the description only vaguely references 'ObjectRef entries' and 'properties', aligning with two schema fields but omitting others like max_chars, include_available_relations, and wave_id. It does not compensate for the low coverage with parameter-specific details.

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 reads properties for exact ObjectRef entries, using a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('properties for exact ObjectRef entries') and distinguishes from siblings like object_resolve and object_query by focusing on already-resolved entries.

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 implies when to use it: after receiving ObjectRef entries from resolve or query. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the 'returned by resolve or query' provides clear context that narrows its purpose relative to sibling tools.

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