Get Scene Item Transform

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, informing the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds only that it retrieves transform components, providing minimal extra behavioral context. It does not describe the return format (e.g., whether it returns a single object with all properties) or any potential errors, but the annotations cover the key safety aspects, so the description meets a baseline level.

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 with zero redundancy. It front-loads the action and target, making it immediately understandable. No unnecessary words or details are included, achieving perfect conciseness.

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?

Given the tool is a read-only getter with fully documented parameters and safe-operation annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The only gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that it returns all four transform properties together, which could be inferred but would help clarify the return value. Since no output schema exists, a brief note on the return structure would be beneficial but is not critical.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning each parameter has a clear description in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics—it doesn't clarify preferred identifiers or relationships between sceneName, sceneUuid, and canvasUuid. Since the schema already handles parameter documentation, a score of 3 is the appropriate baseline.

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's purpose: retrieving position, rotation, scale, or crop of a scene item. It uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies the resource ('scene item transform'), distinguishing it from other scene-item getters (e.g., enabled, index, locked) which handle different properties. The phrase 'or' might imply a choice, but it broadly covers the transform components, making the intent 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 provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. However, the purpose is self-evident: it's a read operation for transform data, and no competing getter exists for the same property. The absence of exclusions or mentions of when not to use it is acceptable given the simplicity, but it could be improved by noting that scene identifier parameters are optional or that a scene must be specified in practice.

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