List OpenToonz scenes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only discovery operation but says nothing about the default scan scope when no projectPath is given, whether scanning is recursive, what the cap on 'limit' means in practice, or how results are ordered — all essential for a filesystem-scanning tool.

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 resource being listed and followed by the scoping option. Nothing is wasted, though 'Discover' is slightly opaque about whether it returns paths, names, or metadata.

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 and no annotations, the definition should explain what a result entry looks like and what happens when no scope is supplied. Neither is covered, and the undocumented limit parameter compounds the gap for a tool that may scan an entire workspace.

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?

Only projectPath is documented in the schema, and the description merely restates it as 'project directory or descriptor' while adding the useful hint that it is optional. The limit parameter (with a 5000 maximum) is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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 verb-plus-resource: discovering .tnz and legacy .tab scenes, including the file formats, which makes it concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_projects, list_artifacts, or inspect_scene, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'Optionally scope results to a project directory or descriptor' implies the two usage modes (workspace-wide versus project-scoped), but never states when to prefer this over inspect_scene or list_projects. The trade-off between a broad scan and a scoped one is left to the agent to work out.

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