inspect_scene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds 'without modifying it', reinforcing the safe read-only nature. It also adds the 'project-relative' scope, which informs the agent about path resolution behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.

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 simple read-only inspection tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does and the relation of the path to the project. It doesn't mention any prerequisites or failure modes, but those are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 has no descriptions for scene_path, and the description compensates by indicating the path is a project-relative .blend file. This gives the single parameter more meaning than the schema alone, though it could be more explicit about path format or file existence requirements.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('a project-relative .blend file'), and the constraint 'without modifying it' distinguishes it from mutation tools. It also differentiates from sibling tools like render_preview by focusing on inspection rather than rendering.

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 description implies usage context (inspect a .blend file without modifying it) but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where another tool like render_preview or get_blender_status would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer from the tool's name.

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