get_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that output is a descendant tree with ClassName/Name/Path. However it never mentions that results are truncated by maxNodes/maxDepth defaults (300 nodes / depth 3), which materially affects interpretation of a listing 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 compact sentences, operation stated first, usage second — no filler. Well front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields, but it omits any mention of truncation/limits the caller must know about for a potentially large tree. Otherwise complete for a read-only listing tool.

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 root, maxDepth, maxNodes and includeProperties are already documented with types, defaults and caps. The description adds only the notion of a root parameter and nothing beyond schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'List scene tree (descendants) from a root' — and names the returned fields (ClassName/Name/Path). The 'descendants' scoping implicitly separates it from get_children/get_instance, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use for viewing the scene, finding GUI, checking builds' supplies concrete use contexts. It gives no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. get_children for one level), but the intended scenarios are clear.

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