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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose that returned records include camera settings, which is useful context beyond the schema. However it says nothing about ordering, pagination, result volume, or whether a sceneId from a different project is rejected — gaps that matter for a list endpoint.

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 establishes verb, resource, returned fields, and scope with zero filler. Nothing can be removed without losing information.

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 low-risk, two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no nested structures, the description is nearly sufficient — it states what is listed and what extra data comes back. The remaining shortfall is the unstated optionality relationship between sceneId and projectId, which an agent must guess.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It implies sceneId is an optional narrowing filter and that the listing falls back to project scope, but it never explicitly states the fallback or that projectId is required, so half the semantic load is left implied.

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 pairs a specific verb ('List') with the resource ('shots') and adds the scope of what is returned ('with camera settings'). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like shot.get or shot.create, so an agent must infer the read-only, collection-level nature from the name 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?

The phrase 'for one scene, or for the whole project' implies the usage pattern — pass sceneId to narrow, omit it to list everything — but this is inference, not an explicit statement. There is no mention of when to prefer shot.get or shot.draft instead, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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