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. It usefully discloses the 'ordered by sequence' return ordering, but says nothing about pagination, result size, whether full scene objects or summaries are returned, or any permission requirements.

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 with zero filler; scope and ordering are stated immediately with no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two-required-param read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials of what is returned and in what order. It falls short only on pagination/return-shape expectations, which the absence of an output schema makes slightly more relevant.

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% for both required params (workspaceId, editId), so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds no format, constraint, or scoping detail beyond the schema's own field descriptions, which is the expected baseline.

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 (List) and resource (scenes) scoped to 'in an edit' and adds the ordering behavior. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular get_scene and from list_shots/list_edits, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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: the 'in an edit' phrase signals you must already have an editId, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer get_scene (single) or list_shots (children) instead. Nothing is misleading, but nothing routes the agent either.

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