scan_scene

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. While 'Read' implies a read-only operation, it does not explicitly state safety, authorization requirements, or potential side effects, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's impact.

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, focused sentence that lists the data types without any redundant wording or unnecessary detail. It front-loads the action and immediately conveys the scope of the tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema (so return format disclosure is less critical), the description remains incomplete. It misses usage context, parameter semantics, and any indication of when this tool is appropriate, leaving an agent underprepared to invoke it correctly.

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 sole parameter instance_id is completely absent from the description, and the schema has no description for it (0% coverage). The description fails to explain what this parameter is for or how it affects the scan, forcing the agent to infer its meaning from the title alone.

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 uses the verb 'Read' and explicitly lists the data types (stable IDs, bounds, nav data, armature bones, Action channel inventories), making the tool's purpose specific and understandable. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a broad scene scan rather than specialized validation or analysis, even though it doesn't name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or contexts where this scan is preferred, and doesn't address when not to use it.

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