query_scene_settings

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior: it returns the full settings object and specifies that the scope is scene-wide physics and rendering. No side effects are described, but for a zero-parameter read operation this is adequate.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, what it returns, and when not to use it. The key scoping information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 simple zero-parameter read-only tool with a clear sibling for mutations, the description fully covers what is read, what is returned, and when to avoid it. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 nothing for the description to add beyond what the input schema already shows. The description's scene-scope clarification adds context, but no parameter-specific semantics are needed. Baseline 4 applies.

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 the tool reads current scene-wide settings, specifically physics and rendering, and returns the full settings object. This distinguishes it from query_settings and query_project_settings by its scene scope, and from modify_scene_settings by the read vs. change intent.

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?

It explicitly says when NOT to use the tool (to change settings) and names the alternative tool (modify_scene_settings). It also implies the correct use case: reading current scene settings. This is direct and leaves no ambiguity.

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