get_scene_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature, the max_nodes traversal budget, truncation behavior via truncated/truncation_reason, and the server-side response cap. This is strong behavioral context, though it doesn't cover error cases or exact category semantics.

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 compact and information-dense, using inline code formatting effectively. However, the parenthetical 'add-scene-context-selection-materials' is cryptic and adds little value, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

It lists return fields and truncation behavior, giving a good picture of output. But ctx is unexplained and 'category' is ambiguous; the timeline is mentioned but not detailed. It's adequate but has notable gaps.

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 must compensate. It explains max_nodes as controlling the HOM traversal budget, but the required ctx parameter is completely unexplained, leaving half the parameters underspecified.

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 tool provides full-scene category counts and timeline, and explicitly distinguishes itself by noting it returns aggregated category distribution rather than the full node list. This sets it apart from sibling tools like get_scene_info or get_geo_summary.

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?

Usage is implied—use it when you need scene-wide category counts and timeline data. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, so guidance is only implicit.

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