scene.inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little beyond that—'Risk: read', maturity L3, and that per-request argument checks and session policy apply—but these are operational labels rather than a concrete account of what the tool returns or how it behaves.

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 short and front-loaded, but brevity comes at the cost of substance: it states provenance, risk, and maturity while omitting the actual function. It is not bloated, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 an output schema present, return-value documentation is less critical, but an agent still cannot tell what 'inspect scene' means, what domain inputs are expected, or how this differs from the many sibling inspect commands. The operational notes do not compensate for the missing functional context.

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 coverage is 75%, with _requestId, _authorization, and _transactionId already described. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the remaining undocumented parameter (_expectedSceneRevision) is the one gap an agent might need explained. Baseline 3 is fair because the schema carries most of the parameter documentation burden.

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 only names the command (`scene.inspect`) and labels it as read risk, but it never states what the tool actually does, such as 'inspects the current Blender scene state'. It is essentially a restatement of the name/title with no verb+resource explanation, and it does not distinguish itself from many similar inspect tools (e.g., blender_mesh_inspect, blender_rig_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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the large set of sibling inspect tools. It does not mention what scene-level inspection is for, when it is appropriate, or which alternatives handle object/mesh/rig inspection.

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