list_takes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does little: it never states that this is a read-only operation, whether the result is paginated or ordered, what 'hierarchy' means structurally, or whether an active take is included. Only the implied safety of 'List' and the mention of hierarchy provide any behavioral signal.

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 well-formed sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a consequence of saying very 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows what it returns at a high level, but not the take/hierarchy structure or ordering, which it must discover by calling it.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the (empty) schema already conveys.

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 verb and resource ('List all takes') and adds scope ('in the scene with their hierarchy'), which cleanly contrasts with the sibling get_current_take. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 prerequisite or state requirement, and no explicit routing to alternatives such as get_current_take or create_take. The plural 'all takes' hints at the contrast with get_current_take, but nothing states it.

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