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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds a visibility/access scoping detail ('visible to the authenticated user'), but it does not describe ordering, pagination, or what happens if gameId is invalid or inaccessible.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and scope efficiently.

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 one-parameter list tool with safety annotations, the description covers the basic action and access scope. Gaps remain around pagination, return contents, and how gameId is obtained, which matter more because there is no output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented gameId parameter. It only implies that a game must be identified, without explaining the ID's source, format, or required status beyond what the property name already suggests.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List scenes in a game.' The scope phrase 'visible to the authenticated user' adds useful access context. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the verb clearly separates it from get_scene, create_scene, and update_scene.

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 implies usage by saying scenes are listed within a game and filtered to what the authenticated user can see. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_scene, list_games, or create_scene, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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