get_scene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and that the current revision accompanies them, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not say how paging terminates, whether an empty list is possible, or whether revision changes between calls.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the name. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing guidance rather than a virtue in itself.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the read-only profile is covered by annotations. Still, for a listing tool with two undocumented parameters and several overlapping siblings, the definition does not say enough about scope and paging behavior for an agent to call it confidently without inspecting the schema.

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 for limit and offset, yet it only says 'pagination' without explaining either parameter. It omits the meaningful constraints the schema encodes (limit default 50, maximum 200, offset default 0) and does not relate the returned revision to any 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active elements') plus a secondary return ('current revision'), but the tool is named get_scene, so the object being read is only implicitly a scene. It also offers no differentiation from close siblings like get_scene_summary, describe_scene, find_elements, and get_element, leaving the agent to guess which of them returns elements versus a scene description.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to prefer get_scene over get_scene_summary, describe_scene, or find_elements, nor any exclusion such as filtered or inactive elements. Only the phrase 'active elements' hints at scope, and even that is left unexplained.

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