blender_inspect_scene

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond that by stating the default compact behavior, warning that full mode should be used sparingly, and disclosing that the tool returns the current fingerprint and accepted snapshot metadata. This is useful behavioral context without contradicting the 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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the most important information (default mode) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds either a capability, a filtering option, or a usage constraint.

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?

For a read-only inspection tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core call decisions: default mode, available filters, full-mode tradeoff, and high-level return contents. It could go deeper on what 'accepted snapshot metadata' means and what the compact summary actually contains, but nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 does map all five parameters in prose: mode (compact/full), collection, scene name, object UUID, and semantic group. However, it leaves some semantics shallow—'semantic group' and the exact effect of combining filters are not explained—so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 clear verb ('Inspect') and resource (Blender scene) and immediately distinguishes the tool by defaulting to a compact collection-oriented summary. It also lists concrete filter dimensions, which makes the tool's role obvious relative to siblings like blender_ping or blender_list_snapshots.

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 explicit conditional guidance: use full mode only when all object transforms are genuinely needed, implying compact mode is the default and safer choice. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion cases, but the filter and mode instructions give clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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