x3d_scene_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists the computed statistics (total node count, DEF'd vs anonymous, type breakdown, component grouping), which conveys the tool's behavior beyond a mere 'get stats' declaration. It does not mention side effects, but for a read-only stats tool this is sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a return-value overview, a usage recommendation, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema, the description enriches context by summarizing the return values. Combined with a single, well-explained parameter and a clear usage hint, the tool is fully specified for the agent.

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 schema only defines x3d_source as a required string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining that it can be an absolute file path or a complete X3D XML document string, which is critical for correct invocation.

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+resource ('Get statistics about an X3D scene') and enumerates concrete outputs (node counts by type, DEF'd vs anonymous, component grouping). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like x3d_node_info or x3d_search_nodes.

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 phrase 'Use this for a quick overview before diving deeper' provides a clear usage context. It implies the tool is a starting point, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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