scene_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the full safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavior beyond annotations: no cost, latency, freshness, or scope notes. Its content (the returned fields) is redundant with the declared output schema.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no filler, which is good, but it reads as a noun-phrase dump without a leading verb or purpose statement. It is under-specified rather than verbose, and the most important information (that it is a read-only summary getter) is not front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to document return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is disambiguation from scene_bounds, scene_list_objects, scene_tree, and selection_get, which matters a lot in a 70+ tool sibling set where several tools answer overlapping scene questions.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The field enumeration does not correspond to any inputs and does not need to.

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 is a bare list of returned fields (scene path, unit scale, bounds, object counts, bake projects, selection) with no verb, so the action is only implied: 'get scene info'. It does overlap-flag the resource (the scene) which distinguishes it from object- or material-level siblings, but it never states that it retrieves rather than sets these values.

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 on when to call this versus the many closely related siblings such as status, scene_bounds, scene_list_objects, scene_tree, or selection_get. An agent has to infer from the field list which tool is the right one for a given question, and nothing tells it that this is the broad summary tool.

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