read_scene

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

Annotations are minimal (only title provided), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read' which implies non-destructive operation, but it does not detail what the 'headless' mode entails, whether it requires specific permissions, or what limitations exist (e.g., file size, scene type constraints). The disclosure is sufficient but not rich.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it is perhaps too concise and could benefit from a brief note about the return format or 'headless' meaning. Still, it wastes no words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and high schema coverage, the description provides adequate functional understanding. However, it lacks explanation of what 'headless' means and what is included in the JSON node tree. This omission reduces completeness, especially compared to sibling read tools like godot_parse_resource.

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%, meaning the input schema already fully describes both parameters (scenePath and projectPath). The description does not add any new semantic information beyond the schema. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3 for parameter semantics.

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 action ('Read'), the resource ('scene file'), and the output format ('JSON node tree'). It adds the qualifier 'headless' which distinguishes it from similar tools that may require a running game. This makes the purpose specific and differentiated from siblings like save_scene or modify_scene_node.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for reading scene structure in a headless context, but no when-not or alternative tools are mentioned. The context is adequate but not enhanced.

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