get_scene_info

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does detail the return fields and conditional availability (e.g., 'if tempo_enabled', 'if available'), but it doesn't mention what happens with an invalid scene_index or confirm it is a non-mutating read operation, though the name 'get' implies it.

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 extremely concise, starting with the purpose and using a clear 'Returns' section followed by an 'Args' line. Every word is informative with no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description covers the primary behavior, return fields, and parameter semantics. It falls short of explaining error handling or explicitly recommending when to use this tool, but the output schema compensates for return value details.

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 schema only provides the type and title for scene_index with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates with an explicit definition: 'Zero-based index of the scene,' which adds crucial meaning that isn't present in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific scene') and enumerates the exact return fields (name, color, tempo, time signature, is_empty, clip_count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scene_clips or get_scene_properties by specifying the exact payload.

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 for retrieving scene details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over related siblings like get_scene_properties or get_scene_clips. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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