blender_describe_scene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds specific behavioral context by detailing what the summary includes (object counts, materials, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two concise sentences plus an example, front-loading the purpose and content. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second gives a practical use case. No wasted words.

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 the presence of an output schema (so return values are documented separately) and comprehensive annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool provides (structured summary of scene components) and why you'd use it (to understand existing objects). No further context is needed.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'format' with a description in the schema itself ('Output format: markdown or json'), and schema description coverage is listed as 0% (likely due to top-level params lack of description). The tool description does not mention the format parameter or its options, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use it. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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?

Description starts with 'Get a structured summary', which clearly states the action (Get) and resource (current scene). It lists specific components: object counts by type, materials, lights, camera, render settings, and frame range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_describe_object (which focuses on a single object) and blender_describe_hierarchy (which focuses on parent-child relationships).

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 description provides an example use case: 'Describe the scene to understand what objects exist before making changes.' This implies when to use it (before edits) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like blender_describe_object or blender_object_list. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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