get_all_scenes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict them. The one piece of added behavioral value is that results are enriched with room/zone association, but nothing is said about ordering, volume, or filtering across bridges.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the most useful detail (room/zone association) sits at the end but is still immediately readable. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated.

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?

This is a simple read-only listing with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return structure — and indeed it does not. Combined with annotations covering safety, the definition supplies enough for correct invocation; only cross-tool routing guidance is missing.

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 and the description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-collection listing with no hidden filters. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies, with no gap to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List scenes') and adds that each entry carries its room or zone, which tells an agent what data the listing yields. It is clearly distinct from the mutation siblings (set_scene, activate_scene_by_name) by name alone, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 step before calling activate_scene_by_name or set_scene. There is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of get_all_groups or get_group, and no preconditions or exclusions are given.

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