blender.get_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral traits: results are truncated at object_limit (200 by default), an objects_truncated flag signals overflow, and no mesh data is returned. It stops short of stating read-only/safety or any permission requirements, which for a read-style tool is a minor omission.

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?

Front-loaded with the return summary, then usage routing, then the truncation caveat and the mesh-data exclusion. Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information, with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still covers the practical invocation facts (default limit, truncation flag, paging escape hatch, absence of mesh data). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is bare, but the description compensates by explaining that at most `object_limit` objects are inlined and that 200 is the default, plus the related objects_truncated output signal. That gives real meaning beyond the schema, though the parameter's exact interaction with paging is only implied.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Return a compact, LLM-sized summary of the active scene') and enumerates exactly what is returned: object names/types/transforms/visibility, collections, cameras, lights, active object, render engine, current frame. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling readers like blender.get_object (single object) and blender.get_objects (paged listing).

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?

'Use this first to see what exists' gives an explicit ordering/entry-point instruction, and it names the alternative ('use blender.get_objects to page through the rest') together with the triggering condition ('when objects_truncated is true'). When-to-use and the alternative are both spelled out.

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