get_suprsend_object

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

The description states this is a 'Get' operation, which implies read-only behavior. However, the annotations include both readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: true, which are contradictory. The description does not address or clarify this contradiction, failing to inform the agent of potential destructive effects. According to the scoring rule, a contradiction between description and annotations results in a score of 1.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when to use, when not to use, returns). It is informative without being overly verbose. Minor improvement could be trimming the list of sibling tools in the 'when not to use' section, but overall it is concise and front-loaded.

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 description covers purpose, parameter usage, return structure (YAML shape with fields like object_type, properties, channels), and sibling differentiation. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by detailing the return format. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no enums, no nested objects), the description is largely complete.

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%, meaning the schema already describes all parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions the parameters in context but does not elaborate on their semantics or constraints. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a SuprSend object's full state by object_type + object_id.' It explicitly defines what objects are (non-user entities) and provides concrete examples like organizations, projects, vehicles, devices. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by listing when NOT to use it and specifying alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It states: 'When to use: the user references an object by id and you need its stored properties or channel identifiers.' For when NOT to use, it lists three specific scenarios with corresponding sibling tool names (get_suprsend_user, get_suprsend_object_preferences, get_suprsend_object_subscriptions).

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