rupa_adegan_lihat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds context: the tool compares node diagonals against a scene median and cites 'a concrete historical scale failure' (438 satuan vs median 1.7) illustrating the check's purpose. A good color for comprehension, but it adds little about how the check is actually performed or what the output shape is.

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 text is a single unlabeled block with the core function, a usage directive, and a extended anecdote about a past scale-faux lag. The anecdote provides domain color but takes up roughly half the text without adding call-time guidance, so the description is not tight.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with the schema fully covering the parameter, the description gives enough to use it: what it checks, which field it acts on via the annotated ruang param, and when to call it. A description of the memory format ('the numbers it fills in') would be nice, but no output schema exists and the tool's simplicity makes the current detail adequate.

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 100% — the single 'ruang' parameter is fully described in the schema ('Nama ruang kerja; tiap ruang punya adegan.blend sendiri'). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it hits the baseline 3 without going further.

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 states a specific function with a concrete scope: it reports each node's world size, each asset's certificate, and performs a skewed-scale check comparing node diagonals against the scene median. This distinguishes it functionally from the sibling list, though it does not explicitly contrast with nearby tools like rupa_periksa or rupa_ukur.

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 explicitly says 'call this before publishing' (Panggil ini sebelum terbit), which is clear workflow context for when to invoke it. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but for a pre-publication check the timing guidance is direct and actionable.

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