get_scene_graph

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it does not truncate or flatten, and it preserves the full hierarchy. It does not explicitly state side effects, but the annotation covers safety. This goes beyond the annotation by describing data completeness.

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 description is two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the contrast/usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 readOnly annotation, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, and differentiates from sibling tools. The only gap is the parameter, which is penalized separately. Overall the tool is well contextualized for a read-only hierarchy inspection.

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 schema has one optional boolean parameter (include_data) with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter or explain what 'data' is included/excluded, leaving the agent to guess. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 clearly states the tool returns the complete scene hierarchy (parent→child) with dimensions, materials, modifiers, and polygons. It explicitly differentiates itself from get_scene_info, so the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit guidance: use it to understand an assembly before modifying it, and contrasts with get_scene_info which truncates/flattens. This tells the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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