get-museum-object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. It discloses the return includes metadata and optionally a base64 image, but does not detail potential errors, authentication requirements, or the extent of 'detailed information'. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous words.

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 simple tool with only two parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers the input format and return behavior. It could mention potential error responses, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds minimal new information beyond the parameter descriptions, except mentioning that the image is returned as base64. The description does not elaborate on the objectId format beyond what the schema says.

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 fetches detailed information for a single Städel museum object using an OAI identifier or bare number, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search-museum-objects' and 'list-sets'.

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 specifies the input format (OAI identifier or bare object number) and the optional return of an image. It implies usage when you have a specific object ID, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or mention when to avoid using it.

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