Inspect an OpenToonz scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description does useful work by disclosing that the tool reads metadata and extracts references without loading or mutating scene resources. That clarifies the safety profile and lightweight nature of the operation, though it does not describe error behavior or output format.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It places the key read-only, non-loading constraint immediately after the core purpose.

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?

For a simple one-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description communicates the core return content (header metadata and serialized references) and the non-mutating behavior. It could be more complete by sketching the return shape, but it is adequate for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the single scenePath parameter is already fully documented with its accepted .tnz/.tab forms. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema coverage.

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 specific verb (read/extract) and specific resources (scene header metadata, serialized level/scanned-path references). It distinguishes the operation from heavier actions by saying it works without loading or mutating scene resources, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 'without loading or mutating scene resources' implies a lightweight inspection use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over validate_scene_resources, list_scenes, or inspect_project. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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