Get Object Info

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful context that the result includes bounding box information measured in cm. Beyond that, it does not describe what else the 'detailed info' contains or how missing objects are handled.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action and follows with the most concrete return detail, the bounding box unit. Every element earns its place.

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?

For a simple read tool with one fully described parameter and safety annotations, the definition is adequate but thin. Because there is no output schema, the description should explain the return contents more fully; 'detailed info' is vague and only the bounding box unit is specified. This leaves the agent unsure what fields or measurements will actually be returned.

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% and the single parameter has a schema description of 'Object name.' The description adds marginal value by clarifying that the named object can be a body or a sketch. This is a baseline case where the schema already documents the parameter, so a 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed info about a named body or sketch.' It scopes the object types to bodies and sketches, which narrows the request. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_bounding_box, get_scene_info, or get_physical_properties, leaving some ambiguity about exactly what 'detailed info' means.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions named bodies and sketches, which implies a use case, but it does not say when to choose it over get_bounding_box, get_scene_info, or get_parameters. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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