Get Object

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive, idempotent read operation. The description adds value by specifying the scope of details returned (properties, ownership, faces, actions, metadata), which isn't in the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional context like rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors, which could be useful given the lack of output schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get full details of a tokenized object') and elaborates with specific details ('its properties, ownership, faces, actions, and metadata'). There's no wasted wording, and every part contributes to understanding the tool's scope, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), the description is adequate but has gaps. It lacks output schema, so the description doesn't explain return values or format, which could be helpful. For a read operation, it's minimally complete, but more context on usage or behavioral nuances would enhance completeness, especially with many sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'object_id' clearly documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 'Get' and resource 'full details of a tokenized object', specifying what information is retrieved (properties, ownership, faces, actions, metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_get_object_activity' or 'dual_get_object_parents' by emphasizing comprehensive details rather than specific aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'dual_public_get_object' or 'dual_search_objects', which slightly limits sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'dual_public_get_object' (likely public vs. authenticated access), 'dual_get_object_children' (for hierarchical data), or 'dual_search_objects' (for filtered lists). There's no context on prerequisites, such as authentication requirements, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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