scene_manage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses operation-specific behavior (e.g., root_name defaults to filename basename, get_roots flags the edited scene) and the canonical call shape with flat-op compatibility. It doesn't mention side effects like file overwrite behavior, but it is substantially transparent.

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 and front-loaded: a one-line summary, a resource-form hint, a bulleted list of operations with parameters, and a call-shape note. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant content, making it both efficient and easy to parse.

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's multi-operation complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the input structure, operations, defaults, and compatibility alias. Minor missing edge cases (e.g., behavior when no scene is open for save_as) prevent a perfect score.

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% and the schema has a generic 'params' object, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It fully explains each operation's parameters (create with path, root_type, root_name; save_as with path; get_roots with no params) and the default behavior for root_name, compensating completely.

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 opens with 'Scene authoring (create, save_as, list open roots)', which clearly states the tool's verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by enumerating three specific operations and noting the resource form for active-session reads, making its scope 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?

It provides a clear usage context: for authoring scenes (create, save_as, get_roots) and explicitly recommends the resource form ('godot://scene/current' and 'godot://scene/hierarchy') for active-session reads. However, it doesn't name alternative sibling tools or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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