Get Scene Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. However, it adds no extra behavioral detail—such as how missing scenes are handled, whether results are unordered, or if there are pagination limits. It is consistent with annotations but does not enhance them.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler or redundant phrases; every word earns its place.

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 read-only list operation with no output schema, the description communicates the primary function clearly. It does omit guidance on parameter selection (e.g., whether sceneName and sceneUuid are mutually exclusive), but given the simplicity and strong annotations, the description is adequately complete. A 4 is appropriate.

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%, with each property (sceneName, sceneUuid, canvasUuid) having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, nor does it clarify whether parameters are alternatives or how they interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 'Get a list of all scene items in a scene' uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('scene items'), and specifies the scope ('in a scene'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like obs-get-group-scene-items (which targets a group, not a scene) and obs-get-scene-item-enabled (which returns a specific state). No ambiguity.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: when you need the complete list of scene items for a scene. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use obs-get-group-scene-items for group items'), but the name and phrasing strongly imply its scope. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.

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