Scene Snapshot

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 scope ('ALL objects') and a workflow-placement rule, which is useful context, but it does not disclose anything about result size, latency, or behavior on empty scenes 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, front-loaded components: purpose, return shape, then boundary. Every sentence earns its place, and the disambiguation is placed last where it doesn't obstruct the primary action.

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 output schema, clear annotations, and zero required parameters, the description supplies everything an agent needs — what it returns, when to call it, and how it differs from siblings. No material gap remains.

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% — detail levels, format options, and the session_key fallback are all documented inline in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get a complete spatial overview of the current Maya scene') and immediately defines the payload ('structured description of ALL objects with positions, sizes, and types'). The Boundary paragraph explicitly distinguishes it from scene_inspect and scene_nodes, so an agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance ('Call this once at the start of each workflow to establish spatial awareness') and names the two alternatives with the conditions that select them (deep-dive inspection vs granular node discovery with pagination). Nothing is left to inference.

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