Scene Aesthetics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the output shape (0-100 score, S/A/B/C/D/F grade, suggestions), which is redundant given the output schema exists, and says nothing about cost, latency, or session requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the core claim and then a clean numbered breakdown of dimensions. Slightly wasteful: the opening line and the second line restate the same '5 dimensions' claim, which could be merged.

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 an output schema present, the return values need not be described, and the dimension list plus annotations give an agent enough to call it. The only real gap is the absence of routing guidance against sibling analysis tools.

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%, so both parameters (format, session_key) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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 specific verb (analyzes) and resource (scene aesthetics) and enumerates the five design dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings like scene_review, scene_validate, or scene_measure, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus scene_review, scene_measure, or scene_validate. There is no context, prerequisite, or exclusion stated — only a statement of capability.

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