validate_scene

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

The description implies it returns errors/suggestions without side effects (read-only), but does not explicitly state it does not modify the scene. No annotations exist, so full burden falls on description. Missing details on whether validation requires the scene to exist or if it is expensive/time-consuming.

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 wasted words. However, it could be expanded slightly to include parameter or context info without losing conciseness.

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 only one parameter and presence of an output schema, the description fails to explain what 'validate' means in context of 24 sibling tools, such as whether it checks a draft scene for errors before rendering or execution. The output schema may help, but the description does not set expectations.

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 0% and the description makes no mention of the single parameter 'scene_name'. It does not explain what valid values are, whether the scene must exist, or any relationship to other tools. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw 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 'Return structured errors, suggestions, and resource estimates' clearly states a specific action and output type. However, it does not explicitly mention the resource being validated (scene), and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'simulate_scene' or 'preview_scene' which may also produce feedback.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_scene' or 'simulate_scene'. No description of prerequisites (e.g., scene must exist), nor any conditions for use.

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