Scene overview and checks

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered, and the description still adds real context: live=true depends on the Modding Kit editor bridge being available, and checks flag unknown prefabs/meshes/physics shapes plus XML errors. It doesn't disclose output format, but as a read-only tool that gap is modest.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its contents; the live/editor caveat comes last where it belongs. The first sentence is a long comma-delimited enumeration, but every listed item is informative given there is no output schema.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating what is reported, and all four parameters are documented. It is nearly complete for a read-only overview tool; only the live-vs-file behavioral difference in returned data could be spelled out further.

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 3 is the baseline, but the description adds meaning the schema doesn't: live=true reports the currently open editor scene rather than a named file, and 'checks' is expanded into the concrete problems it detects. The dependency note ('needs the editor bridge') is genuinely additive parameter context.

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 resource (scene file) and enumerates exactly what the overview contains: header, environment/atmosphere, terrain, statistics, spawn points, bounding box, references, and checks. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like scene_list, scene_entities, and scene_settings, which target narrower slices of scene data.

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?

Frames the tool as an overview/first-look and gives a clear conditional for the live variant (use live=true for the scene open in the editor, needs bridge). It does not explicitly name alternatives such as scene_settings or scene_entities or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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