run_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'headlessly', which is a mode of operation, but does not explain side effects, whether the scene is modified, required environment, or expected outcomes. This is minimal disclosure and leaves the agent guessing about the tool's side effects and safety.

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 filler words. It is front-loaded with the core action and subject. While it is under-specified, it is not verbose or redundant, so it earns credit for conciseness. The lack of detail is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue.

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 complexity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'runs' means in terms of output or side effects, how to handle timeouts, what success looks like, or any error scenarios. An agent has almost no information to make a correct invocation, so completeness is minimal.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention either parameter (scene_path or timeout_ms). The agent receives no explanation of what these parameters mean or how to format them. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail, making this dimension critically weak.

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 a specific action ('Runs') on a specific resource ('scene') with a method ('headlessly'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_scene and inspect_scene_tree, which have clearly different purposes. However, it lacks any further elaboration, so it does not fully reach the highest tier.

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, no context about the intended workflow, and no exclusions. An agent is left to infer its place among the many sibling tools. This is a significant gap for a tool that could be choosen over others.

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