cascadeur_get_state

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 useful scope by naming what will be inspected, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as the response format, whether counts include hidden objects, or any performance implications.

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, compact sentence that communicates the tool's purpose and scope without any filler. Every word adds value, and the key subject ('current scene') is placed up front.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only inspection tool, the description covers the important inputs (none) and names the categories of output: scene, frame range, selection, and object counts. It would be slightly stronger if it mentioned that it returns a summary snapshot rather than detailed per-object data, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the schema shows. The description appropriately focuses on the output contents, which is the only meaningful information an agent needs for invoking a parameterless tool.

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 ('Inspect') and names the resource ('current scene') while enumerating concrete returned aspects: frame range, selection, and object counts. This clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similarly named sibling cascadeur_status.

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 stated scope implies when to use the tool: whenever a summary of the current scene state is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool (e.g., cascadeur_status, cascadeur_list_objects, cascadeur_get_pose) should be preferred for more specific queries.

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