Scene Inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that inspection surfaces transform, BBox, material, mesh stats and optional neighbor distances, which sets expectations about scope and depth. It stops short of noting cost or size limits for deep inspection, so not a 5.

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 purpose, then return contents, then the disambiguation boundary — a logical order with no filler. Every sentence carries routing or expectation-setting information.

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 a full input schema, a present output schema, and rich read-only annotations, the description only needs to cover scope and disambiguation, and it does both. Nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 all four parameters (target, format, session_key, include_neighbors) are already documented in the schema. The description only indirectly echoes the neighbor option ("optionally nearby objects with distances") without adding format or session semantics. Baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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+resource ("Deep inspection of a specific object or zone") and immediately enumerates what it returns. The Boundary section explicitly distinguishes it from scene_snapshot and scene_describe, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 Boundary paragraph names the two most confusable siblings and characterizes each (broad whole-scene spatial overview vs API-level attribute metadata/types/wiring), giving an explicit selection rule. This is genuine when-to-use guidance rather than implied context.

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