List scene sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what is listed (names, IDs, visibility) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the named scene does not exist, or how the active scene is determined. It also doesn't mention any potential errors or side effects, which is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, compact sentence that leads with the action ('List') and resource ('source names, IDs, and visibility'), followed by the context ('active or named scene'). Every word earns its place—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 list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the core function and default behavior. It falls slightly short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly state the return format (e.g., that it returns an array of source objects), though the listed items imply it. Given the low complexity, this is near-complete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'sceneName' with an explicit description of its optionality and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'source names, IDs, and visibility' for a scene, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like studio_list_scenes (lists scenes) and studio_set_source_visibility (sets visibility). It also specifies the scope ('active or named scene'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when you need source metadata for a scene) by mentioning the optional sceneName and default to active scene, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't say 'use studio_set_source_visibility to change visibility' or 'use studio_list_scenes to enumerate scenes.' Usage is clear from context but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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