daz_validate_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It comprehensively explains the tool's behavior: what it checks (collisions, lighting, camera, empty scene), that it returns a score and breakdown, and provides the exact output schema with example. This fully informs the agent.

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 moderately concise, using bullet points and an example output to convey structure. It could be slightly shorter, but the layout is clear and front-loaded with key info.

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?

Given zero parameters and the detailed output description (including return schema in the description), the tool definition is fully complete. The agent has all necessary context to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. Schema description coverage is 100%. The description naturally does not add parameter semantics because there are none to add.

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 tool validates the current scene for common issues before rendering, listing specific checks (collisions, lighting, camera, empty scene). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like daz_check_overlap, which focuses only on overlap.

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 use before rendering by stating 'before rendering' and lists what it checks. However, it does not explicitly exclude conditions or mention alternatives, though siblings like daz_check_overlap provide more specific checks.

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