inspect_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It uses the verb 'Inspect' which implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state safety, side-effects, or any requirements. It also does not describe what the output contains beyond the listed categories, which is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the scope precisely. There is zero redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, so the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers the scope of inspection. The only gap is the lack of explicit read-only declaration, but given the simple nature and output schema, it is largely complete.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema has nothing to document. The description correctly lists what the tool inspects, satisfying the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool. It adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exists.

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 ('Inspect') and a clear resource ('animation-relevant scene state'), and enumerates the exact aspects covered (timeline, camera, objects, actions, strips, markers). This differentiates it from more specific sibling tools like inspect_object_animation and inspect_rig.

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 this is the broad scene inspection tool by listing multiple scene aspects, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools or provide exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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