get_scene_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what is returned and implies a non-mutating, read-only snapshot, but it never explicitly states that nothing is modified or warns about potential cost on large, complex scenes.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first fronts the scope and contents, the second gives the practical usage cue. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description sufficiently explains the return value contents and the context in which to call it. An agent can decide to invoke this tool correctly without further information.

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, so there is no parameter burden. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs, and it does not attempt to invent any.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('scene info'), then enumerates exactly what the overview contains: objects with type and location, counts, vertex/triangle totals, active camera, selection, collections, materials, render settings, and world bounds. This clearly distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like list_objects or list_cameras.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this before modelling so you know what is already there.' It does not list when not to use it or name alternatives like list_objects for detailed queries, but the primary use case is clearly communicated.

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