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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'all scenes' without addressing permissions, whether results are paginated, or how the home/project scope is resolved. The word '所有' (all) even conflicts slightly with the paginated limit/cursor parameters, and that tension is never explained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource and scope with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to be a complete definition.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and both parameters are documented. For a simple read-only list tool this is minimally adequate, but with no annotations the description leaves the safety profile, pagination semantics, and scoping rules implied.

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 100%, so both limit and cursor are already documented in the schema, including that cursor comes from the previous nextCursor. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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 (获取/get) and resource (情景/场景/模式 = scenes) scoped to the current user's home/project. This is enough to distinguish it from execute_scene, but the description never explicitly names that sibling or clarifies the distinction between listing and executing scenes.

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?

No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as execute_scene. The agent must infer that this is the read path for discovering scenes before executing one.

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