analyze_scene_performance

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by explaining the tool runs as a job and produces a result file, and lists the metrics analyzed. No contradictions with annotations.

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, dense sentence that conveys essential information without excess words. However, it could benefit from clearer structuring (e.g., separating result retrieval) and being in English for broader accessibility.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and how to retrieve results, but lacks details on parameter formats or examples. Given no output schema and 0% schema coverage, more parameter guidance is needed for full 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description does not detail individual parameters. It only provides context that the tool analyzes a scene within a project. Parameter semantics are insufficiently explained.

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 it performs a static performance analysis of a scene, listing specific metrics (triangles, vertices, meshes, materials, lights). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'profile_play' (runtime) and 'build_scene' (building).

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 indicates the analysis is static ('ohne Play-Modus') and explains results are obtained via 'get_build_result'. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, the context implies when to use this vs runtime profiling. A direct comparison to alternatives would improve it.

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