get_scene_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. The tool 'pings' and 'returns' information, implying a read-only operation without side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or clarify what happens if the server is unreachable. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 clear sentence, front-loading the main purpose and listing key return values. No superfluous words; every part earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the existence of an output schema (flagged as true), the description sufficiently covers the tool's function. It lists the expected return fields, which is enough for an agent to understand what information is retrieved.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Since no parameters exist, the description needs to add no additional meaning. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as no compensation is required.

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 'pings the Isaac Sim extension server' and 'returns scene information including stage path, assets root, and prim count.' The verb 'ping' and 'return' with specific resources make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_prim_info which focus on individual prims.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., get_prim_info, get_simulation_state), the agent would benefit from explicit context on when scene-level info is appropriate, but the description omits this entirely.

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