Get OCSF object

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining that objects are 'reusable components within OCSF event classes' and provide 'standard structures like endpoints, files, processes', which helps the agent understand the tool's role in OCSF schema exploration. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence followed by a bulleted list for usage scenarios and a concluding explanatory paragraph. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand the tool's purpose and applications quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, and context within OCSF. However, without an output schema, it does not detail the return format (e.g., structure of the object definition), which is a minor gap. The annotations cover safety aspects well.

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%, with both parameters ('version' and 'name') well-documented in the schema. The description does not add specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples for 'version' beyond '1.3.0' or constraints on 'name'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 with specific verbs ('Get the complete definition') and resources ('OCSF object type'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'ocsf_get_class' (which retrieves classes rather than objects) and 'ocsf_get_classes' (which lists classes). It explicitly mentions what the tool provides: 'all fields and metadata' for object types such as 'file', 'process', and 'user'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool through a bulleted list: 'Understand complex nested object structures', 'See the fields and types within objects', 'Map source data to nested OCSF structures', and 'Reference when constructing TQL operators'. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like 'ocsf_get_class' by focusing on objects rather than classes, though it does not explicitly name when not to use it.

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