Scene Inspect

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 some behavioral context by enumerating what is returned (transform, BBox, material, mesh stats, neighbors), but that overlaps with the existing output schema, so net added value is modest.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by return contents; no filler. The return-value sentence is somewhat redundant given the output schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the definition covers the essentials. It is nonetheless incomplete on the one thing structured fields cannot supply: how it differs from sibling inspection tools such as scene_describe.

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 4 well-documented parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely echoes 'target' (object or zone) and 'include_neighbors' (nearby objects with distances) without adding syntax, format, or semantics beyond the schema.

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 scopes it as deep/detailed versus superficial. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like scene_describe, scene_nodes, or scene_measure, leaving the agent to guess which inspection tool to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite a crowded sibling set (scene_describe, scene_nodes, scene_measure, scene_assert). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'specific object or zone'.

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