Get scene item placement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It does add the specific data points returned, which is useful. However, it does not mention behavior on invalid IDs, conflict resolution between sceneId and sceneName, or any side effects. Given annotations cover the safety profile, this adds moderate value but not deep behavioral insight.

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 a single, concise sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then lists the exact attributes retrieved. There is no filler or redundant wording, making it efficient and immediately scannable.

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 getter with an output schema that likely documents the return structure. Annotations cover the safety profile. The description clearly states what data is returned, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is the lack of error-handling or prerequisite context, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this is not a significant omission.

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 67%: sceneId and sceneName have descriptions, while sceneItemId does not. The description does not add any parameter-level explanation, such as clarifying that sceneItemId is required or that sceneId and sceneName are alternatives. Since coverage is moderate and not low, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not compensate for the missing sceneItemId description but also does not need to heavily compensate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'scene item placement', and enumerates the specific properties retrieved (position, size, scale, crop, rotation, bounds). This distinguishes it from the sibling setter 'scene_item_transform_set' and the list tool 'scene_item_list', making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies this is a read-only getter for transform data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention that it complements the setter. There is no guidance on choosing between sceneId and sceneName, but that is parameter-level. The usage context is clear from the name and description, but explicit exclusion of alternatives is missing.

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