List scenes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that by disclosing that removed cameras are included alongside configured ones, and that capture-time range and counts are computed — non-obvious aggregation behavior. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or cost, so it stops short of rich disclosure.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, and the informative gloss '(places watched)' is placed up front. It loses a point only for fragmentary grammar that reads as a return-value caption rather than a tool description.

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?

For a no-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description need not detail return values, yet most of its text does exactly that. What is missing is the action statement and any routing context against the many scene_* and list_cameras siblings, so it is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It neither overstates nor invents parameter behavior.

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 is a noun-phrase fragment enumerating what is returned rather than stating a verb: it never says 'list' or 'retrieve', leaving the action implicit in the name/title. It does disambiguate the resource usefully by glossing 'scenes' as 'places watched', which separates it from sibling list_cameras, but no sibling is named and the operation itself is never asserted.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent gets no help choosing between this tool and siblings like list_cameras, scene_timeline, scene_snapshot, or scene_compare, even though several of these cover overlapping 'scene' territory.

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