get_objects_summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the operation is non-mutating, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds scope (scene collection hierarchy, nested child collections) but does not add further behavioral detail such as whether hidden collections are included or whether selection state filters results.

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 the main action front-loaded ('Return the scene's collection hierarchy and their objects') and a compact elaboration of what each collection lists. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 read-only, zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient: it states the resource scope and the kind of data included. The output schema can carry the detailed return structure, so nothing essential 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 tool takes no parameters, so the schema leaves nothing undocumented. The description adds helpful context about what the response summarizes, but no parameter semantics are needed; baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 returns the scene's collection hierarchy and its objects, naming specific attributes such as name, type, parent, data name, selection, and visibility. This is a specific verb+resource description. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar sibling get_object_detail_summary, so it stops short of full distinction.

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 the tool is appropriate whenever an agent needs the full collection hierarchy and a per-object summary of the current scene. It provides no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention when to prefer alternatives such as get_object_detail_summary or execute_blender_code.

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