renforge_scene_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: reports every layer displayable, focusable control, and text block; includes an 'omitted' completeness hint; supports detail levels (semantic/layout/raw); and explains side effects like committing snapshots (save_as) and diffing (diff_against). This is rich behavioral 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?

The description is a single, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose, then efficiently enumerates options using backticks and semicolons. No sentence is wasted, and it packs substantial detail into a compact structure.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers most major aspects, including output hints and options. Still, it omits explanations of the three limiting parameters, which could be important for large scenes. Overall it is nearly complete but has that gap.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains detail, layers/types/screen/ids, include, format, save_as, and diff_against. However, it does not explain max_items, max_output_bytes, or max_output_depth, which are important output-limiting parameters, leaving a gap for those.

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 perceives the whole scene as structured data, listing exactly what it reports (every layer displayable, focusable control, text block) and the fields included. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool renforge_list_ui_elements, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 directly contrasts with renforge_list_ui_elements ('Unlike ... this reports every...'), providing an explicit alternative. It also describes how to scope results using layers/types/screen/ids and offers options like include, format, save_as, and diff_against, giving clear context for when and how to use the tool.

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