scene_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: project_dir mode works without an open window by reading Assets/main.scene and main.scene.extra, objects are renumbered as #index, the render-group layer disappears and groups become root objects, component names fall back to scene-file names when editor data is missing, and unexpanded children are annotated with counts. save_to is disclosed as a persistent side effect that creates the directory.

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 most important comparison (versus get_scene) is front-loaded and the parameter notes follow in the order an agent would consult them. It is dense but nearly every clause carries new information; only the project_dir passage is long enough to be slightly hard to parse on first read.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the output looks like (indented text per object), what a truncated tree looks like, and what session prerequisites each mode needs. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra credit by adding meaning the schema lacks, notably that save_to writes a file named scene_tree.txt inside the given directory and how subtree accepts #index or name in project_dir mode. It does not, however, explain the interplay or precedence among project_path and instance_id beyond what the schema already says.

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 opening states a specific verb and output form (indented compact text) and enumerates exactly what each line contains: render group, guid, name, hidden flag, component types. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_scene (full JSON) and inspect_many (parameter lookup), so an agent can pick the right tool without opening schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit recommended workflow (survey structure first, then inspect_many for parameters), names the alternative for full JSON (get_scene), and routes single-object exploration to the subtree parameter. Both the when-to-use and the when-not-to-use are spelled out.

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