ecamm_list_scenes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context by disclosing that scenes are flattened out of scene groups and that live state is reported per scene, but it says nothing about ordering, completeness of the live flag, or what happens with nested groups beyond flattening.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that puts the resource first and the useful qualifiers after, with no filler. It is telegraphic rather than polished, but every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does: ids are returned and live/live-status is indicated. For a simple parameterless list tool that is close to complete, though the exact shape of the live indicator remains unspecified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The one piece of scoping semantics that matters, that the list is flattened out of scene groups, is in fact stated.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('All scenes ... with ids') and specifies the scope precisely, distinguishing it from sibling mutators like ecamm_switch_scene or ecamm_step_scene which act on a scene rather than enumerate them. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the enumeration purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any named alternative action. Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the read step for discovering scene ids before a switch or step call. Nothing in the description rules out misuse.

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