get_suprsend_object

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true but description describes a read-only operation ('Get'), creating a direct contradiction. No behavioral context beyond the contradiction is provided that would salvage the score.

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?

Description is well-organized with clear sections (when to use, when not to use, returns) and each sentence adds necessary context. No redundancy or filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but description adequately details the return shape (including channels array structure). Missing information about error handling or behavior when object not found, but given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly 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 has 100% coverage, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining that objects are namespaced by object_type and that workspace is optional, going beyond the schema definitions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a SuprSend object by object_type and object_id, defines objects as non-user entities, and distinguishes from siblings by listing alternative tools for users, preferences, and subscriptions.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (user references object by id) and when NOT to use with specific alternative tools (get_suprsend_user, get_suprsend_object_preferences, get_suprsend_object_subscriptions), leaving no ambiguity.

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