Aggregate scene data into one overview—class histogram, missing bitmaps, layers—to assess scene type and spot broken assets before writing queries.
Aggregate the whole scene: class histogram, missing bitmaps, layers.
Use this to orient yourself before writing queries -- it answers "what kind of scene is this, and is anything broken" in one call.
Args: top_n: how many entries to keep in the class histogram.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_n | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral burden. It does disclose what is returned (histogram, missing bitmaps, layers) and that it is a whole-scene aggregate, implying a read-only inspection, but it never states that it is non-mutating, how expensive it is, or any permission requirements.
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?
Two tight sentences plus a one-line arg note; the purpose is front-loaded and every sentence contributes either scope or usage guidance. 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?
For a single optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it returns, why to call it, and what the one parameter does. Only the absence of any read-only/mutation disclosure keeps it from being fully complete.
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% and the schema gives no description for top_n, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that top_n controls how many entries are kept in the class histogram. The only gap is that no default or sensible value range is mentioned.
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 names a specific verb (aggregate) and resource (the whole scene) and enumerates the payload: class histogram, missing bitmaps, layers. That distinguishes it clearly from query/mutation siblings like max_query_objects and max_set_property, though it does not explicitly name a nearest alternative.
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?
"Use this to orient yourself before writing queries" gives a concrete when-to-use condition and implicitly routes the agent away from query tools for orientation. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, which keeps it short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.