List or inspect scene entities

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring safety, the description still adds real value: handle syntax ([12], [12/0] for children), rotation expressed in degrees, the XML return for entity=, and the live-mode session-id semantics. It doesn't cover paging/limit behavior in prose (deferred to schema), but the output-shape disclosure is strong for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return columns, then the single-entity path, then live mode. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 15-param read tool with no output schema and no enums, the description supplies the return-column list, mode semantics (file vs live), and the entity= drill-down path, fully compensating for the missing output schema.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: rotation is in degrees, handle vs name formats, and the composite filtering surface (name/prefab/tag/script/mesh or distance). These clarify parameter intent rather than merely restating field names.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('entities of a scene file') and enumerates the returned columns (handles, name, prefab, mesh, position, etc.). An agent can distinguish this from scene_info (scene metadata) and scene_edit (mutation) without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: entity=<handle|name> to get one entity's XML, live=true to query the editor's open scene, and notes the #handle linkage to scene_edit live=true. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this over scene_info or when not to use it, so it's clear context rather than full routing.

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