analyze_scene_complexity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific outputs and the ability to analyze either a file or the edited scene, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention potential performance costs on large scenes, or clarify what 'complexity warnings' entails.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the key outputs without any filler words. Every element adds value, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the return content (node count, max depth, histogram, scripts, warnings) and the two input contexts. It is slightly incomplete in not specifying the exact return format or warning criteria, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's phrase 'for a scene file or the edited scene' directly explains that the 'path' parameter is optional and empty means analyze the currently edited scene. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 states the tool reports scene complexity metrics with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('scene file or the edited scene'). It lists concrete outputs (node count, max depth, per-class histogram, attached scripts, complexity warnings), which distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like get_scene_tree or get_scene_dependencies.

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 when scene complexity analysis is needed, and mentions the two modes (file or edited scene). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_scene_dependencies or analyze_signal_flow, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.

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