Validate scene resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the read-only nature plus the non-obvious behavior that it resolves aliases before reporting. It does not say whether missing references cause an error or a report, nor anything about response shape or performance on large scenes.

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, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the read-only guarantee. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 read-only check with no output schema, the description covers what it does and its safety profile adequately. It stops short of describing what the report looks like or how an agent should interpret 'workspace-external', which matters for acting on the result.

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 required scenePath, so the description has to compensate. It references 'scene path aliases', which hints that scenePath may be an aliased identifier, but it never states what form the path takes (absolute, project-relative, alias) or whether aliases are resolved from a workspace manifest.

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 pairs a specific verb ('resolve') with a concrete resource ('scene path aliases') and states the report content (missing or workspace-external level and scanned-image references). It clearly distinguishes a validation task from rendering or listing siblings, though it never names an alternative tool 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight check for broken/external references, and 'This is read-only' signals a safe inspection step. There is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings like inspect_scene or render_scene, nor any stated precondition or exclusion.

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