get_scene_tree

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

The tool has no annotations, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It accurately states it returns JSON data and lists contents, implying it is read-only. However, it does not mention permissions, performance, or potential side effects, which is acceptable for a simple read operation but could be more 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 a single concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's function and output. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

The description lists the contents of the returned JSON (names, types, paths, scripts, groups), which provides good insight into output despite no output schema. For a simple read tool with two parameters, this is adequate and mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description reinforces the scene file parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 inspects a scene and returns the full node tree as JSON, explicitly listing included fields (names, types, paths, scripts, groups). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_properties or get_scene_dependencies.

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 implies usage for inspecting a scene's tree but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_node_properties or get_scene_dependencies. While the purpose is obvious, it lacks comparative context.

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