scene_list_factions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the default source when mapPath is omitted, the default three-faction setup on a new map, and how hostility determines combat targeting. It does not explain error behavior or return shape in detail.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core list operation and remains mostly efficient, though the new-map example is lengthy and could be tightened. The final read-only note is useful but slightly redundant with annotations.

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 and minimal annotations beyond read-only, the description provides enough conceptual return information by stating that it returns factions and their hostile/friendly relationships. It is nearly complete, though it could say more about response structure.

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% for the single optional mapPath parameter. The description partially compensates by stating that without mapPath the newest official save is read, but it does not describe path format, valid values, or how mapPath is resolved.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it lists the factions of a map and reports each faction's hostile and friendly relationships. That scope is precise enough to separate it from sibling mutation tools like scene_set_faction_hostility.

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 implied by the faction-listing purpose and the note that omitting mapPath reads the newest official save, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of scene_set_faction_hostility or other scene inspection tools.

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