scene.inspect

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It adds 'bounded', 'summaries', and 'session-local identities', which clarify that results are constrained, summarized, and use ephemeral session-scoped identifiers. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every qualifier ('bounded', 'summaries', 'session-local identities') adds semantic value.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete for basic invocation. However, it leaves parameter semantics and sibling-tool routing unaddressed, so an agent may not know how filtering or limits shape the result or when a per-kind inspector is more appropriate.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It enumerates the kinds values, but does not explain `limit` or `name_filter` semantics, how they interact, or what defaults apply. The schema provides constraints, but the description adds little beyond restating the enum categories.

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?

Description names a concrete verb and resource: returns scene objects, collections, materials, images, world, camera, and render summaries. It adds 'bounded' and 'session-local identities' to characterize the result. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling inspectors like object.inspect or material.inspect, though the breadth is implied.

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 guidance about when to use scene.inspect versus object.inspect, material.inspect, image.inspect, or other scene-level tools. The word 'summaries' weakly implies a listing/inspection role, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided.

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