get_scene_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates safety, and the description adds useful context about the current scene and the SuperMCP port. It does not describe output format, empty-scene behavior, or connection expectations, but for a simple no-argument read-only tool this is acceptable. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 one clear sentence with the core operation front-loaded and the port detail neatly parenthesized. There is no redundant wording or filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description covers the essential choices an agent needs to make. Because there is no output schema, stating what the returned object list contains would be slightly more helpful, but 'List objects' reasonably implies the return type. The description is complete enough for the tool's low complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description clarifies the only relevant implicit input: the 'current Blender scene.' This is a strong baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 names a concrete action and resource: 'List objects in current Blender scene.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like scene_get_stats (statistics) and get_object_info (individual object details) by emphasizing scene-level object listing. The port context is additive rather than confusing.

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 provides clear context: use this when you need a list of objects in the currently active Blender scene. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the zero-parameter, read-only nature and precise scoping make the intended use obvious. A brief pointer to get_object_info or scene_get_stats would have made it fully explicit.

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