Scene Nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses pagination semantics (has_more/next_cursor signal truncation) and that the list surfaces dependency nodes a spatial view hides. It does not restate the hard cap or cursor-invalidation rules, but those live in the schema.

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 core definition before the boundary routing, and it is compact for the amount of disambiguation it packs in. A few phrases ('pages honestly', 'low-resolution spatial overview') lean rhetorical rather than informational, but nothing is redundant with structured fields.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies scope, sibling boundary and pagination behavior for an 8-param list tool — the remaining gaps (cap details, cursor lifetime) are already in the schema.

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%, so the schema already carries type/inherited, dag_only, limit, cursor, pattern and session_key semantics. The description's only added parameter meaning is the non-DAG node examples (materials, shadingEngines, tool nodes) that motivate dag_only, which is marginal. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (bounded enumeration) and resource (scene nodes), and immediately scopes it with 'including non-DAG nodes' — a distinction no sibling makes. The boundary paragraph names scene_snapshot and scene_describe so the agent can separate the three without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes: scene_snapshot is the once-per-workflow spatial overview, scene_nodes is the name-discovery complement for the API layer, and scene_describe is for attribute schema and connection inspection. When-to-use and the alternative for adjacent needs are both stated.

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