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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose useful substance: it names the rule classes returned (real-world metres, one material, no rescaling to fake a fit) and implies a reference-only operation with no side effects. It does not say outright that the call is read-only or describe the shape/length of the returned guidance, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the tool's purpose before the call conditions. The parenthetical examples of rules earn their space by making the tool's value concrete.

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 read-only help tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it says what topics exist and when to invoke it. The only gap is that it does not indicate how the guidance is returned (structured sections vs. prose) or that the topic parameter selects among those sections.

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?

There is one optional parameter with full schema description coverage and an enum of topics, so the schema already does the work. The description complements it only indirectly by naming what the guidance covers (metadata, scenes, rules), without mapping content to specific topic values. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% coverage.

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 opens with a concrete statement of what the tool provides: server documentation covering metadata semantics, common-mistake rules, and worked scene-building recipes. That makes it immediately distinguishable from every sibling, all of which operate on assets, kits, or terrain rather than on guidance.

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?

It gives two explicit triggers — when a tool behaved unexpectedly, and before a multi-step build — plus an explicit exclusion ('instead of guessing'). An agent knows both when to call it and what failure mode it prevents.

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