get_hierarchy

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: max 3000 nodes, incremental returning NO_CHANGE, full bypassing distillation, and summary token estimates. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful operational context.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses short sentences. However, it is loosely structured, mixing parameter tips in a run-on fashion, and uses inconsistent casing for booleans (full=True vs components=true). Slightly disorganized but not overly verbose.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers most key behaviors and return formats (text tree, summary token count, NO_CHANGE). It omits 'root' and any error handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the effect of most parameters (filter, depth, components, compress, summary, incremental, full, scene). However, the 'root' parameter is not mentioned, and some explanations are terse (e.g., 'bypass distillation'). Still, it goes well beyond the schema.

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 returns the scene hierarchy as a text tree, and explicitly distinguishes it from search_scene for finding specific objects by name/type. This gives a specific resource and scope.

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 explicitly says 'For finding specific object by name/type use search_scene' and provides multiple usage directives: 'Use filter/depth to narrow', 'Set components=true to see component types', etc. This is clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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