check_scene

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the diagnostic (non-mutating) nature, the return shape ('each finding carries the element ids'), and the cost model relative to rendering. It does not state any permission or rate-limit caveats, but for a read-only analysis tool this covers the essentials.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the finding list, then the workflow advice. The example enumeration is long but each entry is a distinct, useful category rather than filler. Minor length, no wasted sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly notes the return content (element ids) and the follow-up action. Combined with fully documented params, an agent has what it needs to invoke and act on results; only cost/limit edge behavior is left implicit.

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 100%, so both parameters (scene, limit) are already documented, including the default of 60 and the list_scenes fallback. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (find) and resource (layout problems, by geometry), and enumerates concrete finding classes (occluded text, overflowing captions, oversized labels, zero-size elements, broken arrow bindings, strays, duplicates). An agent can immediately distinguish it from render_scene and update_elements.

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?

Gives clear timing ('Run it after a batch of drawing') and a direct alternative comparison ('far cheaper than a render'). It names update_elements as the remediation path. No explicit when-not guidance, but the context is unambiguous.

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