getSceneState

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 discloses that this is a read operation ('Get') and implies it returns comprehensive scene data, but lacks details on response format, potential size limitations, or error conditions. The description adds some context about workflow sequencing but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of 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?

The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded effectively.

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 the complexity of returning 'full current scene state' with multiple components, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it but doesn't describe the return format or potential limitations. However, the zero parameters and clear purpose partially mitigate this gap.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is 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 explicitly states the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource as 'full current scene state' with detailed components: 'all objects, lights, camera, and environment'. It clearly distinguishes this read operation from sibling tools that modify the scene (e.g., createObject, deleteObject, updateLight).

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 guidance: 'Call this first before making any changes', which clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives. This establishes a prerequisite for modification operations, helping the agent understand the proper sequence in a workflow.

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