Get Public Object

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

Annotations already cover key traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about authentication not being required, which isn't in the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral details like rate limits, error handling, or response format, limiting added value.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('Get a public object's details' and 'No authentication required') earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 simple read operation with rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency) and a fully described single parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It adds the key authentication context. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning the type of details returned (e.g., metadata, content) to fully compensate for the missing output information.

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 100%, with the parameter 'object_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 ('public object's details'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'dual_get_object', which likely requires authentication, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 clear context with 'No authentication required', which implicitly guides usage for public access scenarios. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'dual_get_object' for authenticated access), so it's not fully explicit about alternatives.

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