get_scene_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond these: it reads from disk (not a running scene), returns data as JSON, and emphasizes no running game is required. This gives the agent a clearer picture of the tool's operational behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function ('Read a scene's node tree...') and then a concise alternative. No filler words or repetition; every sentence 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?

The tool is simple (read a file and return JSON), and the description covers the essential aspects: what is read, where it comes from (disk), the output format (JSON), and the contents of the JSON (names, types, properties, hierarchy). The alternative use case is addressed, and the schema/annotations handle parameter and safety details, so nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (projectPath and scenePath), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, but that is unnecessary because the schema already provides clear meaning. The baseline of 3 applies since the description contributes nothing beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'a scene's node tree from a .tscn file on disk', with a clear list of what is returned (names, types, properties, hierarchy). It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_scene_insights by stating the alternative for architecture analysis, making the purpose 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 explicitly states 'No running game required', establishing a clear context for when to use this tool (file-based inspection without a live project). It also provides a direct when-not instruction by saying 'For architecture analysis, use get_scene_insights', which guides the agent to another sibling tool for a specific alternative use case.

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