get_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Although 'get' implies a read operation, the description does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention error behavior, required permissions, or whether the handle parameter influences the result. It also does not clarify what 'card' means in terms of the returned data structure, leaving the agent to infer.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It omits critical context about parameters and usage, so it is not efficiently informative; it is simply too sparse. The sentence does not earn its place because it leaves major gaps.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description still lacks essential context: the role of 'handle,' the meaning of 'top-level object' in this system, and any differentiation from sibling tools. With both parameters undocumented and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke this tool correctly.

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 for both parameters. It explains that the object is looked up by UID, which covers the 'uid' parameter, but it never mentions 'handle' or its purpose. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain how the two parameters relate or which is primary.

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 specific action (retrieve a card/record) on a resource (top-level object) by UID, and names the object types (zone, scenario, direction). This is clear and unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like get_device, list_objects, or resolve_uid, which also operate on objects or UIDs.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_objects or resolve_uid. It does not state prerequisites, typical contexts, or when this tool would be preferred over siblings. The only hint is the phrase 'top-level object,' which implies a scope but no explicit selection criteria.

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