LOD status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a read-only operation, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it always returns HTTP 200 and exposes a `status` field with enumerated values. This goes beyond the annotation and gives agents concrete expectations about the response.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose, include the endpoint, and enumerate the response values. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant content.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return value and its possible states. However, it omits any explanation of the `scan_id` parameter and does not clarify what each status value implies, leaving a small but real gap in agent guidance.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented `scan_id` parameter, but it never mentions or explains it. While `scan_id` is somewhat self-explanatory from its name, the description adds no parameter-level meaning, leaving the agent to infer the required input.

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 returning level-of-detail index status for the scene splat, names the endpoint (GET /lod), and specifies the response field `status` with its possible values. This distinguishes it from a build tool like scene_lod_build by focusing on status retrieval.

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 this is for checking LOD status, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives such as scene_lod_build. There is no direct guidance on when to poll, what states to act on, or that building LOD is a separate operation.

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