scene_statistics

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 useful context about what metrics are returned (counts, totals) and the purpose, but does not disclose potential performance or side effects. For a read-only statistics tool, this is adequate.

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 and bilingual, with the main function stated first and a clear purpose sentence. It uses no unnecessary words and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what it does and why, and the annotations cover safety. It does not describe the return format, but the agent can infer the result from the listed metrics.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'includeHidden', so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not, which is acceptable. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the 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 summarizes scene composition by type (geometry, shapes, lights, cameras, helpers) and totals (vertices, faces, materials, textures), and explicitly states its purpose: gauging the scale of a render or export. It distinguishes from siblings like count_objects by covering multiple metrics and object categories.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use it to gauge the scale of a render or export.' This gives context for when to call it, but it does not mention alternatives or conditions when it should not be used. The context is clear, but exclusions are absent.

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