scene_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail—deeper levels return only a child count rather than full subtrees—but says nothing about cost or size limits for large scenes with the default depth of 4.

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 result shape before the usage hint. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.

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 an output schema present, the return shape need not be spelled out, and the truncation rule is a nice addition. However, for a tool whose only ambiguous input is `root`, leaving that parameter undocumented makes the definition incomplete for confident invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains what `depth` controls and what happens past the cutoff, but `root` is entirely unexplained despite accepting an integer OR a string (object name vs. handle?), which is exactly the ambiguity an agent needs resolved to call this correctly.

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?

Names a specific resource (object hierarchy) and states the shape of the result (nested nodes), which separates it from flat listings like scene_list_objects and single-object reads like object_get or object_find. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

"Good first look at an unknown scene" implies an orientation use case, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as scene_list_objects or object_find for targeted lookups. Usage is suggested rather than specified.

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