Scene Review

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the audit checks and stating that it returns a 0-100 score plus a detailed issue list. It does not add details about cost, latency, or failure modes, but those are not critical here.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a compact list of checks, a return-value summary, and a usage recommendation. It is efficient overall, though the check list partly duplicates the schema's enum-like options.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema available, the description does not need to explain return formatting in depth. It provides enough context about scope, checks, output, and timing to invoke the tool correctly, but it could be stronger if it distinguished this tool from similar validation siblings.

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 the input schema already documents the checks, format, and session_key parameters. The description lists the available check categories, which reinforces the checks parameter, but it does not add syntax or behavioral meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a clear verb and resource: a comprehensive scene audit that reviews spatial integrity, overlaps, zones, aesthetics, constraints, orphans, naming, components, conflicts, lighting, and organization. It clearly distinguishes itself as a broad quality review rather than a single-purpose check, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as scene_validate or scene_assert.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Use this after any major scene modification to verify quality.' This tells the agent when to call it, but it does not state when not to use it or explicitly compare it with alternative validation tools like scene_validate or scene_assert.

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