inspect_scene_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is read-only (provides a model), but does not clarify output format, potential performance implications (e.g., scope=viewport might be expensive), or whether any state changes occur. The phrase 'compact, AI-optimized' hints at a summarized response but lacks specifics.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrases. The list of included elements is somewhat lengthy but necessary to clarify scope. It is appropriately concise for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the returned 'semantic scene model' looks like, but it does not. It lists components but not their structure or how they interact. Additionally, the behavior for different scopes (e.g., viewport vs selection) is not detailed, leaving gaps for an agent trying to interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description (scope enum with default, nodeId requirement). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, but does not contradict it either. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 provides a semantic scene model of the current working context, listing specific components (selection, parent containers, siblings, layout, tokens, off-canvas). This distinguishes it from simple getters like get_selection or get_node_info, which focus on isolated elements. The intent is evident, though 'AI-optimized' adds minor ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_selection, get_node_info, or query_nodes. The description does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or complementary tools. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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