scene_list_components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only.' is largely a restatement. The description does add value by disclosing which data categories come back (counts, options, variables, graph ids). It says nothing about what happens when no arguments are supplied, how mapPath scopes the read, or the shape of a miss (empty result vs. error).

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 compact sentence with the verb front-loaded, plus a short safety tag. Every clause carries content, though 'Read-only.' duplicates structured annotation data and the nested parenthetical costs a little readability for no gain.

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?

Absent an output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs to know. But for a 3-parameter, all-optional tool with no schema descriptions, it leaves real gaps: the role of mapPath, whether prefab and entity are mutually exclusive, and behavior when args are omitted.

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 coverage is 0% and all three parameters are optional with no descriptions, so the description must carry the full burden. It gestures at `prefab` and `entity` implicitly ('a prefab... or the placed entities of one name') but never names them, and `mapPath` is not mentioned at all. The zero-required-parameter case (what a call with no arguments does) is entirely unexplained.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus a concrete resource (a prefab, its placed copies, or placed entities of one name) and an enumeration of what is returned (collision trigger counts, option-tab options, custom variables, node graph ids). It is distinguishable from scene_list_prefabs and scene_list_entities because it reports component payload rather than listings. The parenthetical '(and its placed copies)' makes the sentence slightly tangled but the intent survives.

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?

There is no statement of when to pick this over scene_list_prefabs, scene_list_entities, or scene_update_prefab. The only routing-like signal is the distinction between reading a prefab vs. reading placed entities by name, which is buried in the object of the sentence rather than framed as selection guidance.

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