scene_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context by specifying that the returned values are *persisted* settings written by scene_show rather than live in-session state, with 'Read-only' as confirmation rather than contradiction.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the read-only/relationship qualifier. Every clause earns its place by either enumerating returned fields or clarifying provenance of the values.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by listing the setting categories returned, which is the key information an agent needs to decide whether to call it. It stops short of describing the nesting/shape of the returned settings object or whether empty settings are omitted, a minor gap for a single-parameter inspect tool.

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?

There is a single required parameter (request.project_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the id format. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when the schema carries the full burden.

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 uses a specific verb+resource framing ('Current persisted scene settings of a project') and enumerates exactly which settings are returned (visibility, opacity, field, selection, stride, slices). It also ties itself to the sibling scene_show as the writer, so an agent can distinguish inspection from mutation without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'as set by scene_show' suggests this is the read half of a show/inspect pair, and 'Read-only' implies safe repeated calling. There is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of scene_show or scene_export, and no prerequisites or exclusions are named.

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