Scene Assert

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds workflow timing and verification intent, but does not disclose failure semantics, auth needs, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. There is minor redundancy between verify and confirm and the unexplained ICEV jargon, but no wasted padding.

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 3-parameter verification tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and workflow role. It leaves sibling differentiation unstated, but is otherwise complete.

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%, and the expectations parameter format and supported properties are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 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?

Names a specific action and resource: verifying scene state against expected values. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like scene_validate or scene_inspect, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly says to use this after modifications to confirm the desired state, and ties it to the VERIFY step of the ICEV workflow. It provides clear context but names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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