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. It states 'get', implying read-only, but does not disclose what happens if the object doesn't exist, whether there are permissions needed, or what exactly 'detailed information' includes. This is insufficient for a safe read operation.

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 very short with one sentence for purpose and one for parameter. It is front-loaded but lacks detail. While concise, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description should at least hint at what information is returned and error cases. It does not. The minimal text leaves the agent guessing about the tool's full behavior.

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 adds a sentence for the parameter 'object_name' that repeats the schema title: 'The name of the object to get information about'. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, especially given 0% schema description coverage. The description does not clarify constraints or expected format.

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', using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from the sibling 'get_scene_info' by focusing on objects. However, 'detailed information' is somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_scene_info or other query tools. The description does not provide context for use cases or exclusions.

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