get_scene_dependencies

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

The description only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but provides no details on return format, whether it scans recursively, what kinds of external dependencies are included, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to address any of these aspects.

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, which is appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it is under-specified: it lacks any structured elaboration on what 'external dependencies' means or how the path should be provided, making it minimally viable but not well-structured.

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's simplicity, a one-sentence description could be sufficient, but it lacks key context. There is no mention of output, prerequisites, or how this relates to sibling tools like get_resource_info. The absence of annotations and output schema makes the description incomplete for an AI agent to select and use it effectively.

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 has one required parameter 'path' with no description at all, and the tool description provides no additional meaning. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate but did not; the parameter's semantics are entirely unspecified.

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 gets external dependencies of a scene file. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools. However, it lacks explicit scope details like 'all' or recursive behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, such as whether the scene must be open, or whether this is preferred over get_resource_info for dependency queries. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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