Scene Validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the violation classes it detects (clearance, object limits, overlaps, height), but says nothing about how violations are reported or whether validation is non-blocking.

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 sentences, no waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the enumeration of checked conditions. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent behavior. The description adequately frames a constraint-validation tool; the only real gap is routing guidance relative to sibling validators.

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 rules JSON format, the five rule types, the format enum, and the session_key are already fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema carries the load.

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 ('Validate scene') and scopes it to spatial constraints, with concrete examples of what is checked. It does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings like scene_assert, scene_check, or scene_measure, so an agent cannot tell which validation-style tool to pick without reading 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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus scene_assert, scene_check, scene_measure, or scene_inspect, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the name and the rule types listed.

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