validate_scene

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

In the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states it runs headless and reports loading and missing dependencies, but lacks details on side effects, authorization needs, or whether it modifies anything. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, but could benefit from slight restructuring for readability (e.g., separating the two reporting aspects).

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 description gives a high-level idea of what the tool returns but lacks specifics on the output format (e.g., structured report, boolean, list of dependencies). For a tool with no output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without extra value.

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 the action ('Validate a scene headless') and what it reports (loads/instantiates status, missing dependencies). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_scene_dependencies' by focusing on validation rather than just listing dependencies.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'run_scene_test', 'get_scene_dependencies'). There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from other validation or testing tools.

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