List Scenes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no permission requirements, no pagination or ordering behavior, no statement of whether an empty result is possible, and no indication of the relationship to project scoping.

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 definition is a single short phrase with zero padding, which is appropriately front-loaded, but this brevity is achieved by omitting necessary information rather than by efficient writing.

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 output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented optional parameter, the description is too thin for an agent to call the tool correctly. It should at minimum explain the project_id scoping behavior and the shape of the returned scene list.

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% for the single project_id parameter, and the description says nothing about it — whether it is required, what happens if omitted (all projects?), or what form the identifier takes. The description therefore fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 Chinese phrase '列出场景注册表' gives a clear verb (列出/list) and resource (场景注册表/scene registry), so the basic purpose is understandable. However, it adds no scope, filtering, or distinguishing detail versus siblings like register_scene or link_event_to_scene, leaving differentiation to the agent's inference.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as register_scene or get_project. The only implied usage is the bare notion of 'listing', which the agent must reconstruct on its own.

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