inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, and 'bounded' hints at pagination/limit behavior, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose details about what a scene summary includes, how names behave when null, or any edge cases. The transparency is reasonable but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence with a subject-verb-object followed by a cond intuitive complement. It wastes no words, front-loading the core behavior ('Read a bounded scene summary') before explaining the secondary option (detailed properties via names).

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?

Though the description is short, the tool has zero required params, an output schema present, and no nested objects. It explains the primary call (bounded scene summary) and the optional enhancement (names). Given the schema already details return shape, the description covers the agent's immediate needs, though 'scene summary' itself remains fuzzy without more context.

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 add meaning: 'bounded' points to limit/offset, and 'pass names for detailed object properties' directly explains the names parameter. Yet it leaves limit and offset to inference, so the compensation is only partial, deserving a mid-range score.

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 ('Read') and explicit resource ('bounded scene summary'), and it explains the behavior of passing names to retrieve detailed object properties. It is clear about the operation's nature, though it does not name any sibling tool to distinguish itself from discover/capture/execute.

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 given about when to use this tool versus its siblings (discover, capture, execute). There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent to guess when this read operation is appropriate over the other tools.

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