get_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells the user what data is returned (all properties, dynamics config, etc.) but does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. It is not misleading but lacks depth beyond listing the content.

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: two sentences, first stating the function and scope, second providing usage context. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description effectively explains what the returned data includes and when to use it. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it could mention error behavior or prerequisites. Given the rich sibling context and schema coverage, this is adequate.

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 covers both parameters at 100% coverage, including a useful alias note for 'target' and an explanation for 'cellName'. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single object'), then enumerates the full scope: 'all properties, dynamics config, states, children, scripts.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_states (states only), get_script (script only), and list_objects (plural list). The purpose is unambiguous.

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: 'Use this when you need to inspect or debug a specific object.' This clearly states a primary use case, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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