outliner-tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'Return', but does not explicitly disclose side effects, performance considerations, or what exactly is included in the output. The list of components adds some transparency about the content, but it does not describe the structure or format, nor potential limitations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Return the logical scene tree') and immediately specifies the content. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it names the tool's output and its key elements. It could be improved by mentioning the output format (e.g., JSON, hierarchy structure), but given the low complexity and lack of annotations, it provides sufficient context. The description does not rely on external information, and the lack of an output schema means it must describe the result, which it does adequately.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 for high coverage, and the description does not need to add parameter information since there are none. The description does not attempt to explain parameters, which is appropriate.

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 returns the logical scene tree, enumerating its components (scenes, view layers, collections, objects, hierarchy). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like outliner-view_layers which specifically handle layers, or outliner-collection_visibility_set which manages visibility. The verb 'Return' and specific resource make the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as outliner-view_layers or outliner-find. It lacks any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. While it is clear what it does, it does not guide the agent in choosing between related outliner tools.

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