Scene Get Hierarchy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape (paginated, flat, fields), depth behavior, and resource form. While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only' or describe error behavior, the verb 'Get' plus 'Returns' makes the non-mutating nature clear.

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 concise sentences with the core action first, followed by output details and a resource-form note. The resource-form line is helpful context but not strictly necessary for tool invocation.

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 hierarchy getter, the description covers purpose, output, depth, and pagination, and an output schema is present to document return values. It doesn't mention error cases (e.g., no open scene) or session-targeting subtleties, but these are not critical given the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline applies. The description's 'Walks up to the specified depth' reiterates the depth parameter rather than adding much new, and 'paginated' vaguely aligns with limit/offset but does not explain their interaction.

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?

Clearly identifies a specific operation ('Get') on a specific resource ('the scene tree hierarchy from the open scene'). The output details (paginated flat list with name, type, path, child count) further distinguish it from sibling node inspection tools.

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?

Provides clear context: it is for reading the hierarchy of the open scene, and the resource form note says to prefer it for active-session reads. However, it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives like node_find or node_get_properties, so an agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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