get_scene_insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by revealing that the tool runs headless, which is not indicated in annotations, and by describing the scope of the analysis, giving a clear picture of what the tool inspects.

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?

The description is extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the primary action and list the analyzed components, followed by the headless note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing the analysis dimensions (type distribution, signals, sub-scenes, scripts, groups, tree depth), giving a strong hint of the return content. It also notes the headless execution. However, it does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., a JSON object), which prevents a perfect score.

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 100%, with both parameters (projectPath and scenePath) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Analyze') with a clear resource ('a scene's architecture') and enumerates the exact aspects covered (type distribution, signals, sub-scenes, scripts, groups, tree depth). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scene_tree, which likely only returns the raw tree.

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 provides clear context by noting it 'Runs headless (no game needed)', implying it is for static analysis without launching the game. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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