Inspect a scene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the layout field includes computed boxes for elements never given coordinates, and it warns that the tool does not display anything. This goes beyond the safety profile provided by annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the main function in the first sentence, then provides targeted usage guidance and a caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the bolded 'USE THIS BEFORE EDITING' plus the final 'This does not display anything' are high-signal phrases with no filler.

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?

With full annotations, a complete input schema (100% coverage), and an output schema, the description supplies all necessary operational context: when to use, what to expect, and a key caveat about non-display. No critical gaps remain for a read-only inspection tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the layout field operationally—'the computed box (x, y, width, height) of every element, including ones you never gave coordinates to'—which clarifies how to use parameters for relative positioning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return the current structured description of a scene' and enumerates the exact contents (id, type, properties, position, size). It also clearly distinguishes itself from rendering siblings with the explicit note 'This does not display anything.'

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'USE THIS BEFORE EDITING whenever you are not sure of the current state.' It also implies exclusions (not for display) but does not explicitly name alternative tools like render_diagram, so it stops short of a full 5.

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