scene_summary

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

The annotation `readOnlyHint=true` already establishes its safe read-only nature, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds the output content (count, frame range, engine) but no further behavioral traits such as performance implications or data freshness. This meets the lower bar set by annotations without adding significant extra context.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose (complete scene summary) and lists the key output items. Every word contributes information; there is no waste or redundancy.

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?

Given the simple nature (0 params, read-only annotation, and existing output schema), the description covers the essential information. It mentions the main output fields, though 'jumlah' (count) is ambiguous about what is being counted (objects, frames, etc.). Since the output schema exists, this ambiguity is partially mitigated, but a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline score of 4. The description instead clarifies the semantics of the output, which is helpful for a no-argument tool.

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 produces a scene summary with specific contents (count, frame range, engine). The verb 'Ringkasan' and resource 'scene' are specific, and it partially distinguishes from siblings like get_scene_info and get_scene_property by focusing on aggregate metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself beyond content listing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_scene_info or get_scene_property. The description only explains what it does, not the context where it is preferable, nor any exclusions.

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