get_scene_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'active study' dependency but does not explain failure modes, whether the operation is read-only, or how limit_per_component affects results. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately concise.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks crucial context about what 'scene summary' entails and how the limit parameter behaves. It does not explain when to use this tool or how it integrates with the active study, leaving important gaps for a tool with only one parameter.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit_per_component' parameter at all. The agent must rely solely on the parameter name and default value, which is a significant gap since the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Return') and resource ('GEOM and SMESH scene summary for the active study'), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_mesh_info or get_study_info. It immediately conveys both the scope and the module focus.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_object_info or get_mesh_info. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name.

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