plan_asset_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that no files are generated and full asset details are not loaded, signaling a lightweight, non-destructive planning operation. It does not mention whether any state is mutated or what the plan output looks like, but the disclosed non-behaviors are meaningful.

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 entire description is one focused sentence that front-loads the action and target, then adds two clear scope constraints. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 explains intent and non-effects well, but there is no output schema and no annotation to clarify what the returned plan contains or how it should be used downstream. With several scene-related siblings, the absence of explicit differentiation and return-value context leaves a meaningful gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Selected asset library ids' gives semantic meaning to the sole parameter item_ids and ties it directly to the planning task. It does not explain the ID format or array-ordering semantics, but the schema already constrains the item count and string requirements.

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 names a specific verb ('Plan'), a specific resource ('ordered scene layers'), and the input source ('selected asset library ids'). It also distinguishes itself from generating/composing siblings by explicitly stating it does not generate files or load full asset details.

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 implies a planning-only context and excludes file generation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus compose_asset_scene or recommend_asset_scene. No alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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