validate_scene_layout

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: only compact violations are returned and geometry remains in Rhino (non-destructive). However, with no annotations, it does not cover permission requirements, error behavior, or performance implications. The info is useful but incomplete.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the primary action and key behavioral outcomes. Every word serves a purpose, but the structure could include parameter clarification without becoming verbose.

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 an output schema exists but is not referenced, and parameters are unexplained, the description feels incomplete. The tool's specific method (R-tree broad-phase) is mentioned, which adds context, but missing usage guidance and parameter details lower completeness.

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?

The description does not explain the two parameters (scene_id, detail_limit) beyond what is in the schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate but fails to add any semantic detail about how to use these 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs collision and room-containment checks using an R-tree broad-phase approach. It specifies the action and resource ('validate scene layout'), but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling 'validate_structure' tool.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description implies usage for validation but lacks explicit context for decision-making.

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