get_scene_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose what kind of summary is returned (e.g., content, format, size), whether it is computationally expensive, or if it requires a cook. This is a significant gap for a tool that might have performance implications.

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, clear sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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?

Despite having zero parameters and no output schema, the description feels incomplete for an agent. It does not explain what 'high-level summary' entails, what the agent can expect to receive, or any side effects (e.g., cooking). Given the complexity of the environment (Houdini), more detail on the summary's scope would be valuable.

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?

The tool has zero parametersholistic, so there is no parameter schema to describe. The description adds meaning by indicating what the tool does. Since there are no parameters, the description is the primary source of semantics, and it adequately covers the operation.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('the scene'), and includes 'high-level summary' to indicate a specific type of output. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_scene_info' which likely provides more detailed information, and 'get_network_overview' which focuses on network structure. However, it could be more explicit about what constitutes a 'high-level summary'.

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 this is for obtaining an overview, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus 'get_scene_info' or other scene-related tools. Given the large sibling list, more explicit guidance would help an agent choose correctly. The lack of parameters simplifies usage but not selection.

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