read_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the two output formats: 'summary' returns per-element one-line descriptions and 'json' returns the full element array. However, it does not mention prerequisites such as active room membership or explicitly state the read-only nature.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the format details following. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 lightweight read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary invocation choice (format) and the return shape. The missing includeDeleted semantics is a minor gap since the parameter name is self-explanatory, but there is no mention of room context requirements. Overall it is adequate and mostly self-contained.

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 alone must clarify parameters. It does so for 'format' by detailing exactly what 'summary' and 'json' return, but it never explains 'includeDeleted' or its default. Thus only half the parameters receive semantic enrichment.

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 opens with 'Read the current drawing,' a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling room-management and element-mutation tools. It unambiguously identifies the tool as the scene-reading operation.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool – whenever the agent needs to inspect the current drawing. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling performs a similar read operation, so exclusions are less critical. A clear invitation to read the drawing suffices.

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