validate_scene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact — that it returns diagnostics rather than a bare pass/fail — which matters because there is no output schema. It does not say whether problems surface as errors or as returned diagnostics, nor how expensive the check is.

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?

One short sentence, zero filler, with the action and the most decision-relevant detail (diagnostics) front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing content.

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 validation tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description leaves critical questions open: what structural problems are detected, what a diagnostic contains, and how expectedRevision affects the result. The annotations cover only the read-only safety profile, so the description must carry the rest and does not.

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?

All three parameters (requestId, sessionId, expectedRevision) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about any of them. In particular, expectedRevision strongly implies optimistic-concurrency validation semantics that are left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('scene structure') and adds that it returns runtime-export diagnostics, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_scene_json or export_runtime. It stops short of saying what validation rules or checks are applied, so an agent knows the category of tool but not its exact scope.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The phrase 'runtime-export diagnostics' hints that it belongs before export_runtime, but the agent must infer that from a single noun phrase rather than a stated condition.

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