get_design_scene

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a 'summary' and uses a 'stable handle', but does not disclose whether it is read-only, if authentication is required, what happens on invalid scene_id, or any 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context such as usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and parameter details necessary for correct tool selection and invocation. The large set of sibling tools increases the need for disambiguation, which is absent.

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 coverage is 0%, requiring the description to explain parameters. It only mentions 'by stable handle' which weakly links to the 'scene_id' parameter, but does not clarify what a stable handle is, how to obtain it, or any constraints on the input string.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'scene summary', clearly indicating the tool retrieves a summary of a design scene. The qualifier 'token-efficient' adds some context but does not differentiate from other 'get_*' sibling tools like 'get_diagram_asset'.

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 such as 'create_design_scene' or other 'get_*' tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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