scene_tree

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'Read-only' restates that with no added value. It does add genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: approximate payload size (~2KB) for the default output and what compact=false returns. It omits truncation behavior for large scenes, which maxChildren hints at.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the category tag and output mode. The 'Read-only' phrase duplicates the annotations and is the one line that doesn't earn its place.

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, the description correctly describes the return shape (text tree vs JSON with geometry). It stops short of covering large-scene truncation or routing to sibling inspection tools, which would make it fully self-sufficient for a 4-parameter listing tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: compact=false yields full JSON with positions and geometry, not just 'full JSON'. It does not clarify depth or types semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource ('Scene hierarchy') and its output form, so an agent knows it lists the scene graph rather than a single object. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like object_details, find_objects, or scene_diff, so an agent must infer which inspection tool to pick.

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 only implied: the ~2KB compact default and the compact=false escape hatch give a cost/detail tradeoff an agent can act on. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer find_objects or object_details instead.

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