get_object_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. Beyond the annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the specific categories of information returned (class, hierarchy, transform, material, etc.), which helps the agent anticipate the tool's output without needing to guess. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 written in two short sentences (bilingual) that front-load the purpose and immediately list the scope of returned data. No filler or redundant wording; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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-only tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough detail about what the tool does and what information it returns. It lacks explicit mentions of edge cases (e.g., undefined object names, error behavior) but these are minor for a read-only introspection tool. Overall, it adequately covers the agent's needs to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% – the only parameter 'name' is fully described as '对象名。 | Object name.' The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., whether it must be unique, case sensitivity, or format). With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and there is no extra information to raise it.

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 verb ('get') and resource ('full info for one object') and enumerates specific aspects (class, hierarchy, transform, hidden/frozen, material, vertex/face counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_property_value (single property), get_hierarchy (only hierarchy), or poly_info (polygon-specific info), so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 implies general use for obtaining comprehensive object details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. For instance, it doesn't mention that for a single property one should use get_property_value or that for hierarchy alone get_hierarchy is sufficient. No exclusions are provided, only a broad statement of capability.

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