Sb3 Remixes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists remix lineage but does not disclose whether it requires a loaded/open project, whether it makes network calls, what happens for projects with no remixes, or the exact structure of the returned lineage. The output schema exists but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, short sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise and readable, though it omits useful context that could be added without much bloat.

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 has one required parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify the project_id semantics, whether the project must be open, or how the remix lineage is structured. The output schema may define the return shape, but the description still leaves key invocation context unclear.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'project_id' implicitly by saying 'for a project'. It does not explain what format the project_id should take (e.g., numeric Scratch project ID vs. a local identifier), nor how it relates to the project currently open in the environment. With a single required parameter and zero schema description, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('remix lineage info for a project'), and specifies the fields returned (id, title, author). It is clear and distinct from siblings like sb3_project_info or social_get_project_info, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 the tool is for retrieving remix lineage, which is a distinct use case among the many project-related siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like sb3_project_info or social_get_project_info, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., project must be open or loaded).

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