get_file_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of what is returned (path, holding parameter, existence flag), which matters because there is no output schema, but it is silent on scope/cost of the scene scan and confirms nothing about side effects. Read-only nature is only implied.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and exact, and the Args block is short. The ctx line is boilerplate noise but costs little.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole source of behavioral and return information, and it supplies the result shape adequately for a simple read tool. It could say more about scan scope, but nothing essential to calling it is missing.

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 compensate, and it does: include_missing_only is fully defined as 'Only report paths that are missing on disk.' The ctx entry is MCP boilerplate rather than a real user parameter, so the single meaningful parameter is well covered.

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 states a specific resource and result set: 'Every file path the scene references, with the parameter holding it and whether it exists.' An agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling get_parm_references, leaving a small ambiguity for selection.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The only conditional text describes what include_missing_only does, which is parameter semantics rather than usage routing.

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