scenes_list

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 genuine domain context beyond that – the scene/clip-slot alignment rule ('Clip slot N of every track belongs to scene N') – which tells the agent how to interpret the returned counts, though it omits ordering guarantees and empty-session behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The returned-field list is front-loaded and the clip-slot alignment rule follows as supporting context, so the agent gets the essentials first.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so at the field level (index, name, colour, clip counts per row). What's missing is minor: whether the result is ordered by index and how rows with no clips are represented.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and closed (additionalProperties=false), consistent with the description's implication of a parameterless full listing.

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 names the resource (scene rows of the session) and enumerates the exact fields returned: index, name, colour, and per-row track clip counts. This makes it clearly the read/list counterpart to scenes_launch and scenes_update, though it never explicitly says 'list' or names those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery call before launching or updating scenes, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools it replaces or complements.

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