qt_vtk_scene_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not say whether this is read-only, what happens if ref points to a non-VTK widget, or how expensive/deep the scene traversal is. 'Scene state' is left undefined, so the agent cannot predict payload shape or side effects.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the purpose. The Args block merely repeats the schema, which is mild waste but not verbose, and the core statement is immediately readable.

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 explained, but the description still leaves the omitted instance parameter, the read-only nature, and the distinction from screenshot/snapshot siblings unaddressed. For a tool with two parameters and zero schema documentation, this is thin.

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, but it only restates ref as 'a widget containing a VTK render window' and completely omits the optional instance parameter. An agent has no idea what instance selects or when to pass it.

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 and resource: 'Get VTK scene state from a PyVista/VTK widget.' An agent can tell this is a read of VTK render-window state, but the description never distinguishes it from siblings such as qt_vtk_screenshot or qt_scene_snapshot, which sound close enough to require a differentiator.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. Given that qt_vtk_screenshot, qt_scene_snapshot, and qt_widget_details sit alongside it, the description should say when scene state is preferable to a screenshot or a widget detail dump, and it says nothing.

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