analyze_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It lists return values (statistics and issues) but does not disclose potential side effects, performance implications for large scenes, or scope limitations (e.g., hidden objects). The read-only nature is inferred but not stated.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, the list of returned items could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is still clear and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately lists return values. However, it lacks details on scope (e.g., whether it considers hidden objects, modifiers, or only active collections) and does not mention performance considerations for complex scenes.

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?

No input parameters exist, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies as no additional param info is needed.

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 ('Analyze') and resource ('the entire scene') and lists specific returned statistics (vertex counts, object types, issues). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scene_stats' or 'mesh_quality_check' by offering comprehensive analysis.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'scene_stats', 'get_scene_info', 'mesh_quality_check'). The description implies comprehensive analysis but does not state when simpler tools are sufficient or when this is preferred.

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