List synthetic views

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by clarifying that results are synthetic renders, not photographs, and that provenance must be carried when citing. This is actionable behavioral guidance for an agent consuming the output.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first fronts the core behavior and endpoint, and the second gives an essential caveat about provenance and photography. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description provides enough: it defines what is returned, scopes it to the scene's splat, and warns about correct citation semantics. No critical calling information is missing.

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 only parameter, scan_id, has no schema-level description, and the tool description never mentions it explicitly. However, the phrase "the scene's own splat" implies the resource is scoped by scene, making the required parameter name reasonably self-explanatory despite the lack of explicit elaboration.

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 listing renders of the scene's own splat that are registered as evidence, and explicitly distinguishes them from photographs. This matches the title and separates it from similar image-related siblings like scene_keyframe_image.

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?

It conveys the key context: use these as synthetic-view evidence, not as photographs, and always preserve the synthetic-view provenance when citing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when to use something else, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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