get_scene_info

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns that loading resources/autoloads may execute project code, which explains why readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true despite 'Inspect' sounding passive. It also flags that results are bounded, matching maxNodes/maxProperties. It stops short of stating the actual caps, defaults, or failure modes.

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?

Three dense sentences, zero preamble, with the core capability front-loaded and the safety caveat immediately after. The trailing 'bounded results include inheritance and instances' is slightly cryptic, but nothing is padding.

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 does a good job enumerating what comes back (hierarchy, properties, scripts, groups, connections, dependencies, inheritance, instances). But for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage it leaves the path arguments and the numeric bounds/defaults unexplained.

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 must carry the parameter burden. Only the two bounding integers are alluded to via 'bounded results'; projectPath, scenePath, their expected formats (res:// paths, project root), and the default/limit values of maxNodes and maxProperties are entirely undocumented.

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 ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('a saved PackedScene'), then enumerates exactly what is exposed: hierarchy, properties, scripts, groups, connections, dependencies. The clause 'without instantiating it' implicitly separates it from instance_scene and get_runtime_tree, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

'Without instantiating it' implies static file inspection vs. runtime/instance approaches, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or named alternative (e.g., use get_node_properties for a live node, instance_scene to actually load it), so the routing is left to inference.

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