get_object_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the precondition (object must be loaded) and the specific return fields, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects. The verb 'Return' implies read-only, but this is not stated explicitly.

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 a single sentence, 11 words, front-loaded with the purpose. It contains no filler and communicates the essential information efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and a likely straightforward output schema. The description covers the main output content and the precondition for use. It omits potential error behavior (e.g., object not found), but given the existence of an output schema, it is sufficiently 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?

The schema already documents the single parameter 'name' with 'Object name to inspect.' The description adds context by specifying 'loaded object,' indicating that the object must already exist and be loaded rather than being fetched on demand. This goes beyond the schema description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource (atom count, state count, and chains for a loaded object). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_selection_info and list_objects, which focus on selections or object listings respectively.

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 phrase 'for a loaded object' implies the tool is used when inspecting an already-loaded object, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_selection_info. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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