Inspect scene sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'with visibility' indicates the output includes visibility status. However, it doesn't state whether hidden sources are included, error behavior if scene_name doesn't exist, or that the tool doesn't modify state. The description adds one useful detail (visibility) but lacks depth for a read operation.

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 of 12 words, front-loads the action ('List sources'), and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key output detail (visibility). It doesn't explain error handling or edge cases, but the output schema likely covers return structure. The description is mostly complete given the tool's low complexity, though it could mention what happens if the scene doesn't exist.

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 must compensate. The only parameter, scene_name, is named clearly and the description links it to the concept of 'inside a scene,' but it doesn't add details like whether the name must be exact or case-sensitive. The parameter name is self-explanatory, so the description's contribution is marginal but not fully compensating for zero schema coverage.

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 verb (List), the resource (sources/scene items inside a scene), and an additional detail (with visibility). It distinguishes from siblings like list_sources (global list) and get_source (single source) by specifying the scope as a specific scene.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to know the source composition of a particular scene and their visibility. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'inside a scene' scope provides clear context that differentiates it from global source listing. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is clear enough.

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