x3d_parse_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the output (indented tree), what is shown (every node, DEF names, key attributes), and auto-detection of input type. This adds meaningful context, though it omits error handling or potential limitations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a usage hint, and an Args section. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. No redundant filler, though it could be tightened without losing clarity.

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?

For a single-parameter parse tool, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, and what to expect. The output schema likely handles return-value details, so the description can focus on purpose and parameter semantics. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema only defines the parameter name and type with no description. The tool description fully compensates by explaining that x3d_source can be a file path or XML document string and that the tool auto-detects which. This is complete and adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 that the tool parses X3D content and displays the scene graph as an indented tree, mentioning every node with DEF names and key attributes. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling tools like search or validation.

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 clear guidance on when to use it: to understand the structure of an existing X3D scene before modifying or analyzing it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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