scene_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral context: no GPU required, takes a few seconds, detects missing linked files ('that would render pink'), and returns a scene_id for reuse. It stops short of error/permission behavior or whether the scene is mutated, but the operational profile is unusually well disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in sentence one, then handles invocation modes and workflow placement. Three sentences, each carrying distinct information with no filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still notes scene_id is returned for reuse. Combined with input-mode coverage, sibling routing, and the no-render behavioral profile, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: scene_path is '.blend or .py file', scene_script is 'bpy Python code as text, no file needed', and scene_id comes 'from a previous call'. Each of the three parameters gets explaining format or provenance, leaving only mutual-exclusivity/default rules unstated.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read a Blender scene') and immediately scopes it ('WITHOUT rendering'), then enumerates exactly what is returned (cameras, frame range, fps, resolution, engine, objects, lights, materials, animation, missing linked files). This clearly differentiates it from the render_* siblings, which perform rendering.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it: 'Call this first for a .blend you did not write yourself, or after writing a bpy script to check what it produced.' It also routes output forward ('Use the camera names and frame range in render_preview / render_final'), naming the downstream alternatives.

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