get_scene_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns information, but does not explicitly mention that it is read-only or that it has no side effects. However, the 'get' prefix strongly implies a non-destructive operation, and there are no obvious side-effect concerns for a scene information query. It doesn't disclose any potential errors (e.g., no scene open) or performance impacts, so it's minimal but not misleading.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it immediately understandable. It earns its place perfectly.

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 no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what to use it for, and the output schema presumably details the return structure. While it doesn't enumerate what 'comprehensive information' includes, that level of detail is better left to the output schema. It lacks explicit guidance on error conditions, but that's a minor gap for such a simple getter.

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, which according to the rubric sets a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it correctly avoids introducing any.

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 returns comprehensive information about the current Blender scene. The verb 'Return' and the resource 'current Blender scene' are specific, and it naturally distinguishes itself from sibling getters like get_camera_info, get_world_info, and get_object_info, which target narrower scopes.

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 tool's purpose is self-evident from the name and description; there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other info tools. While it is implied that this is the go-to for overall scene state, the description doesn't mention alternatives or conditions, so an agent might not know when to prefer, say, get_scene_info over get_camera_info. This is adequate but lacks explicit routing.

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