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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description earns credit for adding what they don't: pagination via next_cursor and the target truncation rule (max 20 targets per scene, targets_total is authoritative). It stops short of describing ordering guarantees beyond 'in their order' or any filtering behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then return shape, then pagination — no filler. The parenthetical about targets is dense but earns its place because it prevents a misinterpretation of the truncated list.

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?

With no output schema, the description must hint at return shape, and it does: scene order, state values, screen/sub-screen targets, and pagination. It leaves the exact per-scene object fields and default ordering semantics unstated, which is a minor gap for an agent that only needs to list and page.

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%, and the schema already documents limit (1-100, default 25) and cursor as the next_cursor from the previous page. The description's 'pass next_cursor as cursor for the next page' restates the schema rather than adding syntax or edge-case guidance, so baseline 3 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the team's scenes') and adds scope ('in their order') plus what is returned. It is clear on its own, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling list_screens, so an agent must infer the split from the names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied by the description of the returned data; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_screens, activate_scene, or release_scene. The pagination instruction tells the agent how to continue, not when to choose this tool.

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