production.scene_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description correctly adds that results are paginated and what categories are reported. It adds nothing about how 'issues' are classified or what the detail levels change, so it clears the lowered bar without going beyond it.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the pagination note is placed where it matters. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the unresolved parameter ambiguities.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. Still, a four-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage with undocumented detail/object_name semantics leaves an agent guessing how to scope the audit.

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 carries the burden, yet only 'paginated' gestures at limit/offset. The 'detail' parameter (defaulting to 'summary') and 'object_name' filtering are never explained, leaving two of four parameters opaque.

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?

Specific verb ('summarize') plus the exact resource contents: scene, units, frame range, objects and issues. That content list makes it distinguishable from diff_scene or the many *_status siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative, so not a 5.

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 indication of when to reach for this instead of production.diff_scene or the various *_status/*_inspect tools. The word 'issues' hints at a QA pass, but there is no explicit trigger or exclusion, so the agent must infer the use case.

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