get_example

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: the dual list/return mode and the fact that each scene carries a _comment explaining what made it work. No auth, rate-limit, or pagination details are given.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its dual behavior, then the workflow hint. The sentences are a little run-on with parenthetical asides, but each carries weight and nothing is redundant.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both invocation modes, the return content (_comment), and the follow-up workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 must carry the parameter meaning, and it does: empty name lists, a name returns the scene. It even illustrates how to modify a returned scene. That compensates well for the undocumented `name` parameter.

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 resource (worked example scenes) and a clear dual-mode behavior: no name lists them, a name returns the scene. It also names a sibling (preview_scene) as the downstream consumer, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the schema.

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 clear context for use: pull an example to preview as-is or to modify rather than starting from nothing, which is a genuine routing hint. It does not, however, state when to avoid this tool or contrast it with siblings like doodles or plan_scene.

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