get_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return scope (statistics not raw arrays) and details the types of data included. It does not mention side effects, but as a getter, the read-only nature is implied. The description is sufficiently transparent about what it returns and what it omits.

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 concise and front-loaded. It opens with a clear summary ('Everything about one object') and then lists specific attributes, followed by a crucial clarification and pointer to the alternative. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 description enumerates the categories of returned data, which is helpful given no output schema. It also distinguishes from get_mesh_data. However, it does not mention error conditions (e.g., nonexistent object) or provide a return format example, which is a minor gap for a tool without an output schema.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it only mentions that include_mesh_stats controls mesh statistics, which is already stated in the schema. Baseline 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 clear purpose: retrieving comprehensive object metadata (transform, dimensions, visibility, collections, parenting, material slots, bounds, and mesh-specific stats). It explicitly differentiates itself from get_mesh_data by clarifying it returns statistics rather than raw mesh arrays, which prevents confusion among siblings.

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 NOT to use this tool ('use get_mesh_data for those') and names the alternative. While it doesn't explicitly say when to use it, the context makes it obvious that it's for general object inspection, and the exclusion is clear.

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