scene_tree

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail not in the annotations: the parent relationship is conveyed via indentation, and each row carries world-space bounds and triangle counts. It does not describe ordering or pagination beyond truncation, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields before the truncation caveat. No filler, though the field list is packed densely without structure that would help an agent parse it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return content, and it does so reasonably: field names, the indent-based hierarchy, and truncation. Gaps remain around ordering and whether the traversal is hierarchical or flat, but for a simple listing tool this is largely sufficient.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description must carry the parameter. It does explain that `limit` caps the number of objects shown, which is real added meaning, but it omits the default value of 200 and says nothing about ordering (which objects count as the 'first'). Partial compensation only.

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 (every object in the scene) and enumerates the specific attributes returned: type, collection, parent-by-indent, world size, world minimum corner, triangle count. That is concrete and specific. It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as `array` or `mesh_info`, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., `array` for a flat list or `mesh_info` for a single object's details). The only contextual sentence, 'Shows the first `limit` objects,' is truncation behavior, not usage guidance.

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