get_scene_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states what the tool returns (scene info including resolution, mobject/animation counts) and provides an example, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly mention that the tool has no side effects, nor does it address potential error conditions (e.g., what happens if no scene exists). This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 relatively concise and well-structured with 'Returns' and 'Example' sections. However, the line 'IMPORTANT: Always use MCP tools for scene operations' is a generic instruction not specific to this tool, which adds noise. The core content is efficient, but the irrelevant line prevents a perfect score.

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 simple getter with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does, what it returns, and provides a concrete example. There are no missing prerequisites or ambiguities about invocation. The description fully equips an agent to use this tool correctly in the context of the other scene-operation tools.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully defines the input. According to the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; the example `get_scene_info()` confirms that no arguments are required.

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 function: 'Get the current scene's configuration and element counts.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_config or render_scene. The 'Returns' line further specifies what information is provided (resolution, mobject/animation counts), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_render_result or verify_scene_overlaps. The phrase 'IMPORTANT: Always use MCP tools for scene operations' is a general reminder, not tool-specific guidance. Usage is implied by the tool's purpose: call it when you need to inspect the current scene's configuration and counts, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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