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 disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description never explicitly states that it does not modify the scene, nor does it describe side effects, failure modes, or what 'detailed information' includes. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 opens with a clear purpose sentence and then provides parameter guidance. The parameter paragraph is somewhat wordy but each instruction is relevant, and the structure is easy to parse. It earns its length because the schema itself provides no parameter documentation.

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?

The tool is simple, has one well-documented parameter, and an output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required from the description. However, it lacks usage guidance and explicit behavioral transparency, which prevents the description from being fully self-contained. Overall it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema only defines the parameter with no description, and the description fully compensates. It clearly specifies that user_prompt must be quoted verbatim, not paraphrased, reused across multi-step tasks, and never replaced with sub-goals or status text. This is rich, actionable guidance beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about the current Blender scene'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_object_info, but the scene-level resource scoping makes the distinction inferable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_object_info, get_viewport_screenshot, or export_scene. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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