scene_list_entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant, but the description adds genuine behavioral context: the editor assigns new GUIDs on pack import, and without mapPath it reads the last save the editor wrote. Those are non-obvious semantics an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded with the returned-field list first and the workflow caveat second. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the field enumeration and the 'Read-only' clause overlap slightly with structured data.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates what is returned, and it explains the default-save behavior that a caller needs. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit/namePrefix parameters, which is minor for what is otherwise a well-covered read tool.

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 carries the burden and only covers mapPath (default target when omitted). The limit and namePrefix parameters are left completely unexplained in both schema and description, so the compensation is partial.

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 and resource ('List entities placed in a save by name') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (GUID, asset id, position, level-start flag, kind), which distinguishes it from the nearby scene_list_components, scene_list_prefabs and scene_list_signals siblings.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow condition: after scene_import_assets, read GUIDs here before writing them into a node graph, because the editor reassigns GUIDs on import. That is real when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't state exclusions or name an alternative tool for other listing needs.

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