scene.inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the 'headless Blender' execution context and explicitly states the source file is never modified, which reinforces but also adds context beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations, but the extra behavioral disclosure is modest.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the primary action, the second enumerates what is returned. No filler, every sentence earns its place, and the most critical info (purpose) is front-loaded. An excellent example of efficient description.

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?

An output schema exists (not shown) so the return format is presumably covered. The description addresses the input format, the operation's purpose, and the safety guarantee (never modified). For a single-parameter inspection tool with annotations covering safety, this is complete. Minor missing details like error behavior or unsupported formats do not significantly hinder correct usage.

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 has a single 'input_path' string with no description (coverage 0%). The description compensates by specifying that the path must point to a GLB, FBX, or BLEND asset, which adds format constraint and clarifies the purpose of the parameter. This is meaningful beyond the schema's bare type declaration.

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 states a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('GLB, FBX, or BLEND asset'), and clearly defines the return value: scene structure with object names/types, material slots, mesh counts, etc. This distinguishes it from the sibling mutation tools (apply_material, transform, add_modifier, export) which all perform actions; only this tool inspects the scene structure.

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 usage for inspecting scene structure, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools are clearly mutation/export oriented, so an agent can infer when to use this tool, but no explicit routing is given. This is implied usage without exclusions.

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