get_object_detail_summary

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read; the description adds that the result is a structured summary and enumerates the included categories. It does not describe error behavior for a missing name, but for a read-only single-object lookup this is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences, the first stating the action and the second listing return contents. No filler or redundancy.

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 low parameter count, read-only annotation, and available output schema mean the description covers the essential call contract. It could add an explicit pointer to sibling tools for overview summaries, but nothing needed to invoke the tool is missing.

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 schema only lists 'name' as a required string with no property description. The description adds that this name identifies the object and hints at scope by mentioning data-block name, giving the agent just enough to supply the correct input.

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 the exact operation ('Return a structured summary') and the target ('the object identified by name'), and its field list makes clear this is a per-object detail tool rather than a scene-wide summary like get_objects_summary.

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 intended context is implied: call it when you need a detailed summary of one named object. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_objects_summary or state when not to use it, so the routing guidance is weaker than it could be.

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