get_scene_info

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does most of that job by inventorying the returned payload — molecules, chains, ligands, residue counts, current style layers, render settings, and available styles/materials. The verb 'List' plus the read-style framing signals a non-mutating inspection call. It omits edge behavior such as what happens when the scene is empty or how large the listing can get.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the returned content and then the workflow hint, with no filler. Every clause names something the agent can act on.

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 zero-parameter inspection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies enough: what is returned, why to call it, and where it fits relative to styling. The remaining gap is the absence of any error or empty-scene behavior, which matters a little more here because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends its space on return content instead of inventing argument guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') on a specific resource ('the molecules in the scene') and then enumerates exactly what comes back: chains, ligands, residue counts, style layers, render settings, and the available styles/color schemes/materials. No sibling tool in the list is a scene-inspection getter, so the agent can distinguish it from fetch_structure (loads external data), add_style, and set_render_settings without opening any schema.

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?

It gives an explicit sequencing instruction: 'Call this before styling to learn chain IDs and ligand names,' which tells the agent when this tool belongs in a workflow and implicitly points at the styling siblings (add_style, remove_style, clear_styles) as the follow-up. It stops short of stating when not to call it or naming an alternative, so it is a clear context rather than a full decision rule.

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