get_lod_occlusion_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a read-only diagnostic by naming the scanned content ('scenes with LODGroup/occlusion markers'), but never states whether it scans the whole project or the open scene, how results are shaped, cost/latency, or whether output is truncated. For a zero-annotation tool this leaves substantive gaps.

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?

A single compact sentence with the subject front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the ambiguity around what 'coverage' measures rather than resolving it.

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 simple zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is roughly proportionate but under-delivers on the one thing that matters: the shape and scope of the result (whole project vs open scene, list vs metric). No annotations exist to backfill that, so a short clarification would materially help.

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 zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter meaning the description needs to supply. Nothing in the description misdescribes or invents inputs.

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 the domain (LOD/Occlusion coverage) and the resource inspected (scenes with LODGroup/occlusion markers), which separates it from generic settings tools like get_graphics_settings. However, 'coverage' is never defined — it is unclear whether the result is a percentage, a per-scene list, or a count of missing markers — so the agent knows the topic but not what it actually gets.

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?

'for perf triage' implies a usage context (performance investigation), which is more than nothing. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no prerequisite, and no named alternative among the many other get_* diagnostic tools, so the guidance remains inferential.

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