get_runtime_tree

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it explicitly promises not to change pause state (relevant next to set_debug_pause) and states the result is bounded, which tells the agent output is truncated rather than exhaustive. Since there is no output schema, describing the returned fields here is genuinely additive. It still omits details like what happens on truncation or the session-handle requirement, so it falls short of 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key non-mutation guarantee, then the return shape. Nothing is wasted and there is no preamble.

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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema and weak parameter documentation, this is the minimum viable amount: it tells the agent what the tool returns and that results are bounded. Missing are the session prerequisite, default limits, and how truncation is signaled, which an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 only 33%: maxDepth and maxNodes carry no descriptions, and only sessionId is documented. "Bounded" hints that those two parameters constrain the result, but the description never explains depth counting, defaults, or truncation behavior, so it does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: inspect the scene tree of a live debug session, and describes what comes back (node paths, classes, script paths). It stops short of naming the boundary versus editor-side siblings such as get_scene_info or get_node_properties, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

"Live debug session" implies this only works while a debug session is running, which is useful implied context. But there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusion against get_scene_info, get_node_properties, or sample_node_properties, and no statement of what happens if no session exists.

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