get_object_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get' which hints at read-only, but it does not clarify what information is returned, how errors are handled (e.g., object not found), or whether there are side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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: one sentence for purpose and a parameter list. Every part earns its place, and the structure is clean and immediately readable. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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 tool has minimal schema (1 param), no output schema, and no annotations. The description only says 'detailed information' without specifying which details (transforms, materials, mesh data, etc.) are included. For a getter tool, this is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect from the response, especially without an output schema.

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 description includes 'object_name: The name of the object to get information about', which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's bare title 'Object Name'. While the addition is minimal, it explicitly ties the parameter to the tool's purpose, making it useful for the agent.

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 it gets detailed information about a specific object in the Blender scene. The verb 'Get' + resource 'specific object' makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like get_scene_info (scene-level) and get_viewport_screenshot (visual).

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need details about a single object. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., get_scene_info for scene-level data) or state prerequisites like 'object must exist'. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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