resolve_scene_refs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description redundantly says 'Read-only,' which is not extra value. However, it adds behavioral details by specifying the per-ref output format (OK|MISS|AMB + path + details) and that fields checks existence on matched component. This discloses resolution behavior beyond what annotations convey.

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 only two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every clause adds value: the ref syntax, the optional fields, and the output format. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, both parameters, and the return format. It could benefit from an example or a note on when to prefer this over similar tools, but it is otherwise 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains refs as 'comma-separated list of $alias, /path, or t:Type tokens' and fields as 'optional comma-separated field names to check existence on matched component.' This is thorough and adds essential semantics for both parameters.

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 opens with 'Read-only scene reference resolver,' clearly identifying the action (resolve) and resource (scene refs). It further distinguishes itself from related tools like lint_scene_refs by specifying the output as OK|MISS|AMB + path, which is a resolution status, not a lint report. This gives a specific verb+scope and distinguishes from siblings.

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 explains the input format and output but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as search_scene, get_component, or lint_scene_refs. It doesn't state exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended use cases. The usage is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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