sw_list_scenes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that Chinese city scenes require automatic asset preparation on first use, taking a few seconds. However, it does not clarify whether listing itself triggers this preparation or if it is read-only, and it omits other behavioral details like return format.

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 concise and well-structured, with a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a bullet-like breakdown of scene categories. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted content.

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 simple listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and the key distinction between built-in and auto-prep scenes. It is almost complete, but it could clarify whether calling the list triggers asset preparation and could mention the output shape, even though the schema exists.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and there is no schema detail to supplement.

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 it lists scenes for ray tracing with real building geometry, using the specific verb 'list' and naming the resource 'scenes'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on scenes, not presets, datasets, or results.

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 implies usage when needing to know available ray tracing scenes and provides context about built-in vs. auto-prepared city scenes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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