blender_iso_inspect_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Inspects' suggests a read-only operation, which is a moderate behavioral disclosure. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., an open scene) or side effects. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence with the primary action front-loaded. No filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the inspection returns (e.g., a summary, a list, full details). It does not, nor does it mention any prerequisites like having a scene open. For an inspection tool with three optional parameters, this is a gap—an agent knows what it inspects but not what it will receive or if any state is required.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three boolean parameters. The description lists the areas inspected (objects, cameras, materials) which loosely correspond to the parameter names, but it does not explain how the include flags affect the output (e.g., whether they filter results or toggle detail levels). The agent cannot infer exact parameter behavior from the text.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspects') and resource ('current Blender scene structure'), listing concrete aspects: objects, camera configuration, and active materials. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_iso_setup_scene or blender_iso_render_turnaround, which create or modify, not inspect.

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 nature of the tool (inspection) implies it should be used to check scene state before making changes, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It's an implied usage scenario, not a stated one.

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