get_scene_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the data returned and does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or any performance implications. For a query tool, this is a notable gap; an agent cannot infer that it is safe and non-mutating from the description alone.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('场景概况' - scene overview) and lists the specific data fields. There is no redundant or filler content; every phrase adds value.

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 parameterless query tool, the description lists the key pieces of information it returns (name, frame range, fps, units, active objects/cameras, selection, count by type, collection tree), which is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what it will receive. No output schema is provided, but the description covers the main return items, making it adequate for its simplicity.

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 parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none. The schema coverage is 100% (empty properties), and the description correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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's purpose: it provides a scene overview with a specific list of attributes (name, frame range, fps, units, active objects/cameras, selection, count by type, collection tree). It uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'scene', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_object_info or get_camera_info, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, as a general-purpose scene info query, the intended usage is implied by its purpose. It lacks any mention of when not to use it or conditions for selecting it over similar tools like get_blender_info.

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