blender_scene_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' strongly implies a non-mutating read operation, and the list of returned information (name, frame range, render settings, object count) communicates what to expect. It does not explicitly state read-only or describe output format, but it is not misleading.

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 that immediately identifies the action and resource, then efficiently lists the key returned fields. There is no filler or repetition.

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, read-only information tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and expected content. It could mention output format or explicitly say no scene modification occurs, but the current wording is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a burden. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail while correctly standing on its own.

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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('current scene information') and enumerates concrete contents: name, frame range, render settings, and object count. This distinguishes it from scene-mutation siblings like blender_scene_new and blender_scene_clear.

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 clearly implies this is the read-only inspection tool for scene state, distinct from scene mutation or version-checking tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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