scene_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'shows what the scene looked like before recent updates or deletions' but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's read-only (implied by 'view'), rate limits, pagination beyond the limit parameter, or what format the history entries take. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states purpose, second elaborates functionality, third provides usage context. Every sentence adds value with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 2 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context (purpose and usage) but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (history entries format), behavioral constraints, or error conditions. For a read-only history tool, this is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 schema already documents both parameters (scene_id and limit) thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work, though the description doesn't compensate with additional context like default behaviors or examples.

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 tool's purpose: 'View history of scene changes (snapshots)' with specific verbs ('view', 'shows') and resource ('scene changes'). It distinguishes from siblings like scene_list (which likely shows current scenes) by focusing on historical snapshots. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., scene_diagnose might also involve debugging).

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 provides implied usage context: 'Useful for debugging or understanding what changed.' This suggests when to use it (for debugging/change analysis) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings. No guidance on prerequisites or comparisons to similar tools like scene_diagnose.

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