List a scene's camera paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral value on top by disclosing the returned payload (ids, names, walk/fly modes, key counts, chapter labels) and the fact that every scene gets an automatic default path after building. It stops short of 5 because error behavior for unbuilt scenes and any limits on tourLink are unstated.

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?

One tightly packed sentence leads with the action and resource, then immediately lists the return fields and the tourLink. There is no redundant restatement of the title or name, and every clause carries new 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 takes on return-value disclosure and does so thoroughly, which is the main completeness burden here. The only gap is edge-case behavior, such as what is returned or raised when a scene has not finished building.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `scene` parameter already documents its accepted forms (scene id, upload job id, share link). The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, which matches the baseline-3 expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 pairs a specific verb ("List") with a precise resource ("guided-tour camera paths of a scene") and enumerates what comes back, so it is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like set_camera_path or reset_auto_camera_path. It falls short of a 5 only because it never names the neighboring list/get tools an agent might confuse it with.

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?

It supplies one useful timing cue – a default path exists after the scene builds – which implies when a call is meaningful. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing advice (e.g. versus list_scenes or get_scene_status), so selection guidance is only implied.

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