layer_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. What it does add is the shape of the result (camera layer mask plus non-default-layer objects), which is genuine value given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about scope, scene coverage, or limits.

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 sentences with the safety tag front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument inspection tool, though the fragment-style second sentence is terse enough to feel like a note rather than a specification.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back, and it only sketches that. It does not clarify whether the camera mask is reported per-layer, whether objects are grouped or listed flat, or what 'non-default' is measured against, which an agent would want before relying on the output.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 states a concrete verb+resource pairing: it reads the camera's layer mask and any objects assigned to non-default layers. That is specific enough to distinguish it from pure scene listings, though it never names the adjacent tools (camera_details, set_layers) that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus camera_details, scene_tree, or set_layers, and no mention of prerequisites. The '[INSPECT]' tag implies a read-only diagnostic context, but the choice between this and its siblings is left entirely to inference.

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