validate_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does well by explicitly stating that the tool does not execute editor Python, implying safe, read-only validation. It also discloses the kind of problems it flags, making its behavior predictable.

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 only two sentences with no filler: it states the action, the return format, the problem categories, and the key behavioral constraint. It is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool has no required parameters and an output schema is present, so the return structure is already covered. The description supplies the missing context: what kind of validation is run, what issues it flags, and that it is safe to invoke without editor Python side effects.

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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description appropriately does not attempt to add irrelevant parameter detail.

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 names a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('AiCompanion gem's scene validation'), and the concrete output ('report as JSON'). It also differentiates itself from scene inspection siblings like get_scene_snapshot and get_entity_tree by focusing on validation and flagging common problems.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want a validation report of common scene problems. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.

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