get_scene_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful parameter behavior: filepath_a defaults to the current scene if empty, and filepath_b must be specified. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on missing files, or what the output format looks like. 'Compare' implies no mutation, but it isn't 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 two sentences plus an args list, with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded ('Compare two scenes and list differences') and the parameter details are concise. It earns a 4 because it is efficient, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit headings.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description conveys the core intent but leaves gaps: it does not explain what aspects of scenes are compared (objects, materials, transforms, etc.), what 'differences' means, or whether the operation modifies anything. The phrase 'current if empty' is also ambiguous. A bit more detail would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: filepath_a is 'First .blend file (current if empty)' and filepath_b is 'Second .blend file (must be specified)'. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults, though it remains brief.

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 action ('Compare two scenes') and the result ('list differences'). This distinguishes it from other scene-related tools like get_scene_summary, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The resource is a pair of .blend files, which is specific enough.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to compare two scenes) but gives no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It does clarify the parameter roles, but there is no guidance on when not to use it versus sibling tools like get_scene_info or get_scene_summary.

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