get_scene_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not specify the return format, whether it includes hidden nodes, or error behavior when no scene is open. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, effectively communicating the core purpose.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete but leaves the return structure underspecified. It says 'node tree' but does not clarify whether it is a nested hierarchy, list, or map. This is a minor gap for a tool with no output 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to explain. The description does not add parameter semantics, but the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('node tree') and explicitly scopes it to the current scene. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_properties or get_scene_dependencies.

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 implies usage when you need the node tree, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_scene_dependencies or get_node_properties. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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