inspect_scene_nodes_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Inspect' and does not explain read-only guarantees, output shape, truncation behavior, or side effects. It is not misleading, but it is largely silent for a complex inspection tool.

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 single sentence is efficient and has no filler, but it is under-sized for a tool with 10 parameters and no schema descriptions. This reads more as under-specification than as effective conciseness.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, a one-line description is inadequate. It offers no context about traversal scope, filtering, output limits, or how it complements sibling operations.

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% and the description names none of the 10 parameters, leaving limit, max_bytes, include_ports, node_paths, and others entirely to their titles and defaults. The description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('document-level Cinema 4D Scene Nodes graph'), and the 'document-level' qualifier distinguishes it from capsule-level inspection siblings. However, it does not state what the inspection returns or how it relates to edit/layout 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of edit_scene_nodes_graph, layout_scene_nodes_graph, or the capsule inspection tools. The 'document-level' wording weakly implies scope, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.

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