get_object

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

The description conveys that this is a passthrough to GetObject with wildcard name/title support and warns that it is a low-level escape hatch. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it carries the full burden and does not explain return behavior, error behavior, whether the call is read-only, or what 'direct GetObject semantics' means in terms of observable side effects.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the core identity front-loaded and the alternatives/usage guidance following in one compact paragraph. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema parameter documentation, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It gives good routing guidance but omits return values, timeout meaning, session_id relevance, and type parameter behavior. An agent would still need to guess at important invocation details.

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 must compensate. It adds that name/title support optional wildcards, but it does not explain type, timeout, or session_id semantics. Given five undocumented parameters, this is only partial guidance.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'call TestedApplication.GetObject with optional wildcard name/title.' It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning this as a low-level escape hatch, not the structured diagnostic or focus-changing tool.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer find_object/search_objects for structured diagnostics and focus_object for changing focus, and reserves this tool for 'platform/test-client edge cases where direct GetObject semantics matter.' This gives the agent concrete selection criteria and exclusions.

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