validate_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool checks required layers and frame range without indicating mutation. However, it does not state what happens on validation failure, whether it returns a boolean/report, or whether it has side effects.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The key message—what is validated and when to run it—is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the validation produces, how failures are reported, or what 'required layers' means in practice. An agent could call it but would not know how to interpret the result.

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. It maps well to 'required_layers' and to 'start_frame'/'end_frame' via 'requested frame range', but it omits 'filename', a required parameter. Parameter names help, but the description does not fully cover all four parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('Validate'), a clear resource (the scene's required layers and requested frame range), and the context ('before export'). This differentiates it from export and generation siblings by positioning it as a pre-flight check.

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 phrase 'before export' gives a clear usage context and tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, but the guidance is unambiguous enough to prevent confusion with export tools.

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