diff_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 transparency. It only says 'Compare two scene files,' which implies a read-only operation but does not disclose whether it modifies files, what the output format is, or how missing/invalid files are handled. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource. While it omits details, that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue. It earns a high score for not wasting words.

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 description is minimal and lacks contextual completeness. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a diff report, exit code) or any side effects. For a tool with three parameters and no annotation support, more context is needed to understand the full scope and use case.

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 100% as each parameter has a description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already provides clear descriptions for path_a, path_b, and ignore_whitespace. Per the rubric, this earns a baseline of 3.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Compare') and the resource ('two scene files'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like diff_script and diff_animation by specifying scene files. However, it does not elaborate on what aspect of scene files is compared or the nature of the output, so a slight deduction from 5.

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 such as diff_resource or diff_project_config. It also does not mention any prerequisites or contextual scenarios. This is a clear gap in usage guidance.

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