scene_list_unit_statuses

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 redundant. The description does add useful return-shape context (id, name, effects), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens when the save has no statuses.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, output fields and safety note; nothing wasted.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, so it is nearly adequate. The gaps are the undocumented mapPath parameter and the ambiguous save-vs-map framing, which an agent would need to resolve before calling.

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% for the single parameter 'mapPath', and the description never mentions it. Worse, the description frames the data as coming from 'a save' while the parameter is named mapPath, leaving the relationship between the two unexplained and whether the parameter is optional (it is not required) unclear.

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 ('List') plus resource ('unit statuses') and the returned fields (id, name, effects), which separates it from sibling scene_add_unit_status. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the read/write distinction is unmistakable.

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?

'defined in a save' implies the context in which to call it and read-only usage is stated, so the intent is inferable. However there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as scene_add_unit_status for creating statuses.

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