Scene Naming

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only says 'Summarize' — it never states whether this is read-only, what scope of scene it inspects, or whether it requires a loaded scene. For a four-parameter analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

One tight sentence with no padding, and the enumerated result types are front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the substance missing above.

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 need not be described, but the definition still leaves the input parameters undocumented and the operation's scope and safety profile unstated. For a tool with four unexplained integer controls, the description does not provide enough to invoke it confidently.

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 the description must compensate; it partially does by naming prefixes, suffixes, and families, which map to prefix_limit, suffix_limit, and family_limit. However, max_examples and the truncation/limit semantics of all four integers remain completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 names a concrete output ('common prefixes, suffixes, families, and NURBS control candidates') but never states the resource being analyzed — presumably object names in the current scene — so the verb 'Summarize' hangs on an unstated object. It also does nothing to separate it from siblings like scene_context or scene_hierarchy, which could plausibly also report name information.

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 indication of when to call this versus scene_context, scene_hierarchy, or scene_connections, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. An agent has to guess that this is the naming-convention analysis tool.

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