get_scene_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly (an 'overview' query) and lists what fields are returned, which is useful. However, it does not state pagination behavior despite a 'limit' parameter, nor whether results are truncated, nor whether it is safe/non-mutating explicitly. The disclosure of returned fields is genuinely helpful but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the return payload then the usage condition. No wasted words and the most important information (what you get) comes first.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 67% param coverage, so the description must do more. It handles the return-shape burden well by enumerating fields, but it omits pagination/limit semantics and any mention of read-only safety, which for a no-annotation tool are meaningful gaps.

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 67%: 'query' and 'collection' are documented in the schema, while 'limit' (default 60) has no description in either place. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partially-complete schema coverage and no compensating description.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: returns a 'scene overview' enumerating objects, locations, sizes, bboxes, modifiers, materials, camera/lights, and overall bounding box. It tells the agent exactly what data comes back, distinguishing it from inspection siblings like inspect_object. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_status or inspect_object by naming alternatives, but the enumeration is specific enough to be useful.

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 before editing an existing scene.' clearly gives the when-to-use condition and implicitly contrasts with tools that create scenes from scratch (create_primitive, import_model). It does not name a concrete alternative (e.g., inspect_object for a single object), but the temporal guidance is actionable.

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