scene_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the useful fact that this is a snapshot read of live scene state (active scene, current frame, bounds, counts, selection) rather than a persisted listing. It omits whether values reflect the current evaluation state or the saved file, and gives no units for bounds, but for a zero-parameter read this is solid.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb comes first and the returned fields are enumerated immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it enumerates the five main fields, which is adequate for a simple zero-parameter read. Minor gaps remain: it does not state the shape/units of 'bounds' or the ordering of the returned selection, but an agent can call this correctly regardless.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description correctly implies the tool is unconditional and requires no filtering arguments.

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 ('Read') plus an enumerated payload: active scene, current frame, bounds, object count and selection. That is far more informative than the name alone and roughly distinguishes it from scene_list (which enumerates scenes) and selection_get (which returns only selection). It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead when only one piece of this data is needed.

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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as selection_get or timeline_get for narrower reads. The agent must infer the usage context from the sibling tool names alone.

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