get_scene_json

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

The readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a safe, closed-world read. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations cannot carry — that the response payload is large and therefore expensive — but says nothing about the JSON's structure, size magnitude, or how requestId/sessionId/expectedRevision affect 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?

Two clauses, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by the cost warning and alternatives. There is no filler and every word carries routing value.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials (payload identity and size), but it leaves the concurrency semantics of expectedRevision and the relationship to the near-identical get_scene sibling unexplained. An agent can call it, but may call it when get_scene would have sufficed.

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 the three parameters (requestId, sessionId, expectedRevision) are documented nowhere. The description makes no attempt to explain them; their names are largely self-evident, but expectedRevision in particular implies an optimistic-concurrency/view-staleness contract that is left entirely unexplained.

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 the resource returned — the full ChronoScene JSON document — which is a concrete and distinguishable payload. It does not, however, explain how this differs from the sibling get_scene, forcing the agent to guess which of the two returns the complete document.

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?

'Use sparingly (large) — prefer list_layers / describe_*' gives a clear cost-based directive plus two named alternatives, which is exactly the routing signal an agent needs. It stops short of stating the positive condition under which the full dump is the right choice (e.g. when the fine-grained describe calls would need many round-trips).

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