get_scene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the return payload (scene, revision, selected timeline, playhead), which matters because there is no output schema; it stops short of describing staleness or concurrency behavior implied by expectedRevision.

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 resource and its contents, with no filler. The compression makes the second clause slightly telegraphic, but every phrase carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a decent job naming what comes back, but it leaves the sessionId/expectedRevision contract and any pagination or size limits unexplained. Adequate to call the tool, incomplete for calling it correctly under concurrency or multi-session conditions.

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%, so all three parameters (requestId, sessionId, expectedRevision) are undocumented anywhere. The description gives no meaning to any of them, notably expectedRevision, which suggests an optimistic-concurrency check that an agent could easily misuse on a read call.

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 (read) and resource (live editor scene) plus the payload elements returned: revision, selected timeline, playhead. This clearly differentiates it from mutation siblings like update_composition and from list/describe siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_scene_json.

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?

"Read before editing existing work" gives a clear precondition that tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives such as get_scene_json or evaluate_at_time, so the boundary between similar read tools is left to inference.

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