Wick

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 parses and returns data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify error handling (e.g., for invalid paths), performance aspects, or output format details. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and output. Every word earns its place: 'Parses' (action), '.tscn scene file' (resource), and 'returns...' (result). There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (parsing a file format) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return structure (e.g., JSON format), error cases, or dependencies. For a tool that parses a specific file type with no structured output documentation, more detail is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.

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 input schema has one parameter ('scenePath') with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic details. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the low coverage. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher; the description implies parsing a scene file, which loosely relates to 'scenePath', but adds no specific meaning (e.g., format or constraints).

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's purpose: 'Parses a .tscn scene file and returns the node tree structure, properties, and external resources.' It specifies the verb ('parses'), resource ('.tscn scene file'), and output (node tree, properties, resources). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'scene_list' or 'project_info', which might also relate to scenes or files.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence), exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'scene_list' (which might list scenes without parsing). Usage is implied only by the purpose statement, lacking explicit context or recommendations.

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