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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true/destructiveHint=false, but the description still adds real behavioral context: the exact returned payload fields, the fact that empty screens come with upload commands, and an editor_url/open_in_editor. Repeating 'Read-only' is redundant with annotations, which caps this at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the return contents before the routing sentence. Dense but almost every clause earns its place; the enumeration is slightly long, but each field listed is meaningful for downstream edit_scene calls.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly (scene, review, editor_url, open_in_editor, upload commands). Combined with explicit sibling routing for a read-only tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Single project_id parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the id and its source. The description adds no extra syntax or format detail for the parameter; 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Reads the current scene of a still or film project') and then enumerates exactly what the scene contains (object ids, positions, angles, screen media, last editor, review). An agent can distinguish it from render_preview, review_scene and get_launch_video without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the primary use case ('before edit_scene to get object ids and current values') and the secondary one ('see what a person changed'), then routes to three alternatives with their distinct purposes — render_preview, review_scene, get_launch_video. Nothing is left to inference.

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