Scene Context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing is said about cost, whether the call traverses the whole scene, whether root listing is truncated (the root_limit default of 100 hints at truncation but this is never stated), or plugin-inclusion side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the returned facets with no filler. It is efficient, though the bare enumeration leaves room for a short clarifying clause about truncation or 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, which lowers the bar. However, for a three-parameter introspection tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description should at minimum explain root_limit truncation and include_plugins.

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 0%, so all three parameters (root_limit, count_types, include_plugins) are undocumented everywhere. The description's mention of 'roots' and 'node counts' loosely maps to the first two, but include_plugins is never explained and no format, units, or valid values are given.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates concrete contents (metadata, selection, roots, units, time, node counts), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like scene_hierarchy or scene_naming, leaving some overlap to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus scene_hierarchy, scene_naming, or scene_connections, and no preconditions or exclusions. The agent must infer from the sibling names alone.

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