blender_get_scene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's silence on side effects is acceptable. It adds useful context about the detailed flag expanding per-object data, but it does not disclose output size or latency implications of requesting detailed data. No contradiction 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?

Two front-loaded sentences with a compact Args section and no filler. Every sentence earns its place: the first specifies scope and contents, the second explains the optional detailed flag.

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 simple, read-only, zero-required-parameter tool, the description is adequate: it defines the return scope and the optional flag, while annotations cover safety. Without an output schema, it could have been more explicit about the exact structure of the returned overview, but the enumerated categories are enough for an agent to call it 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?

The description adds real meaning for 'detailed' ('Include per-object modifiers, constraints, light and camera data') beyond the schema's bare boolean. The response_format parameter is already fully described in the schema with its enum values, so combined schema+description coverage is strong.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clearly scoped resource ('overview of the open scene') and enumerates the contents: objects, collections, materials, meshes, images, render settings, frame range, and active object. This distinguishes it from siblings like blender_get_object or blender_list_objects, which target narrower data.

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 conveys a clear inspection use case but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over related tools such as blender_get_object or blender_set_render_settings. Usage is implied by the word 'overview' rather than explicitly routed, so an agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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