get_scene_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the return content (name/class/script, nested), which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for the response.

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, front-loaded sentence that uses a specific verb and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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, parameterless, read-only tool, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what the output contains (name/class/script, nested). No output schema is present, so the description carries the responsibility for return-value context, and it does so clearly.

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 has zero parameters, and the baseline is 4. The description clarifies that the tool operates on the currently open scene, which is an implicit context parameter, but since there are no explicit parameters, the schema and description together are fully sufficient.

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 action ('Return'), the target resource ('node tree'), and the specific context ('scene currently open in the editor'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool get_remote_tree by specifying 'in the editor', which is a unique qualifier.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when needing the node tree of the currently open editor scene. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'in the editor' phrasing implicitly separates it from remote/runtime tools like get_remote_tree, so the usage is clear enough.

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