Scene context card

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

With readOnlyHint=true already provided, the description adds useful behavioral context by defining the card's scope and compact nature. It discloses that this is intentionally a summary-level response and points elsewhere for deeper detail. It does not describe output format, pagination, or error behavior, but for a simple read-only card the added context is meaningful.

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 a single dense sentence plus a short routing instruction. Every phrase earns its place: it states the tool's role, lists the contents, and directs the agent to sibling tools for details. It is front-loaded with the key identification ('Tier-1 context card for a scene').

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, read-only summary tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the response contains by listing the major content categories. It also sets expectations about scope and directs the agent to other scene tools for deeper data. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether to call this tool.

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 has one required parameter, scan_id, with 0% schema-level description coverage. The tool description minimally connects the parameter to the domain by saying 'for a scene,' but it does not explain the format, source, or expected semantics of scan_id. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, which keeps this adequate, but the description does not meaningfully compensate for the missing schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as a Tier-1 context card for a scene and enumerates its contents (source, metric/anchor state, room + summary, closed-world object inventory, ground frame, workspace artifacts). It distinguishes itself from sibling detail tools by saying 'small by design' and 'pull details with the other scene tools,' though it does not name a specific sibling or use an explicit verb like 'retrieve.'

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 'Tier-1 context card' and 'small by design — pull details with the other scene tools' communicates when to use this tool: as a lightweight overview before going deeper. It gives clear context but does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions beyond the general 'pull details' guidance.

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