describe_scene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral content by naming what the prose covers (spatial layout, clusters, connectivity), but says nothing about output size, cost/latency, or how verbosity is controlled by the detailed flag.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the produced artifact. The framing 'human/agent-readable' and the trailing 'for cognitive verification' are slightly redundant but not wasted.

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 needn't be explained, and the annotations cover safety. What is missing relative to a crowded sibling set is any guidance on detail level (the detailed parameter) or when to choose prose description over the structured getters.

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% for the single parameter 'detailed', and the description never mentions it or explains what toggling it changes. With only one boolean at stake the impact is limited, but the description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 and object: 'Generate a ... prose description of the diagram's spatial layout, clusters, and connectivity.' An agent can tell this produces natural-language prose rather than the structured data returned by get_scene, although the description never names that sibling or get_scene_summary explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'for cognitive verification' implies a context (an agent sanity-checking a layout it just built), but there is no explicit when-to-use rule and no routing away from the several overlapping siblings (get_scene, get_scene_summary, preview, export_scene). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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