Scene Manage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: create writes the initial root immediately but later mutations remain in editor memory until scene_save or save_as is called; save_as saves to a new file path; get_roots lists open scenes and flags the edited one. It also explains the canonical call shape and compatibility alias. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't cover error cases or side effects like overwriting existing files.

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 description is well-structured with a brief intro, resource form note, and a bulleted op list. It's front-loaded with the tool's purpose and the resource form preference. The canonical call shape note is useful but slightly verbose. Overall, every section earns its place, though the op list could be tightened.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers the main operations, their parameters, and key behavioral caveats. It doesn't explain return values (output schema covers that) or error conditions, but for an authoring tool with multiple ops, the description is reasonably complete. The main gap is lack of explicit when-to-use vs siblings, but the resource form hint partially covers 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the op enum values and their params: create(path, root_type='Node3D', root_name=''), save_as(path), get_roots(). It also explains root_name defaults to filename basename when empty. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't document session_id or the exact shape of params for each op in full detail.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: scene authoring with three specific operations (create, save_as, list open roots). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning resource form godot://scene/current and godot://scene/hierarchy and noting 'prefer for active-session reads', which differentiates it from scene_open, scene_save, and scene_get_hierarchy.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for scene authoring operations and active-session reads via resource form. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the resource form hint and op list imply the usage boundaries. It could be stronger with explicit exclusions, but it's adequate.

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