validate_scene_scale

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the basic validation check but omits behavioral details like whether the tool modifies data, error handling, or required permissions. Agent lacks awareness of side effects.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words; every part conveys essential information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not describe the validation result format or how to interpret the output. Given low complexity, it is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'reference_object'. The description hints at a default target but does not explain the parameter's purpose or usage. The agent must infer that it allows overriding the reference, which is insufficient.

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 it validates unit scale by checking mesh height against a specific reference (Summit infantry target at ~1.6m). This distinguishes it from sibling validation tools like validate_action_root_motion.

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 use for scale validation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks depth.

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