scene_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond listing return fields; it does not mention potential performance, permissions, or side effects. Since annotations carry the burden, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds some functional detail but no extra behavioral transparency.

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 concise, front-loaded with the list of returned fields, and includes an English translation for clarity. It is two lines with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's output.

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 info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It enumerates all the fields the agent can expect, which is enough to understand the return value. However, it does not specify the data structure (e.g., dictionary vs. list), which might be slightly ambiguous, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not, which is appropriate.

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's purpose: it returns the current scene's name, path, modified flag, object count, selection, active layer, and renderer. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like scene_statistics, which might return more granular stats. The verb 'return' and the explicit list of fields make the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a summary of the current scene's basic attributes. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as scene_statistics or get_selection, nor does it state any conditions for preferring this tool. Usage context is implied by the content but not explicitly guided.

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