Read scene tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states this is a read operation ('Show', 'Read') and discloses the content included in the result (types, scripts, sub-scenes, groups). It also embeds a workflow recommendation, but does not detail potential limitations like depth handling, which is covered by the schema. Overall, it is transparent for a simple read tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and ends with an actionable usage tip. Every word contributes value; no filler or redundant information.

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 simplicity, the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a complete contract: it states what the tool returns (node hierarchy with types, scripts, sub-scenes, groups) and when to use it (before editing). This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and capabilities.

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 is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; parameters like 'scene', 'project', and 'max_depth' are already well-documented. The description's content is orthogonal, focusing on output rather than input parameters.

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 shows a scene's node hierarchy with specific details (types, attached scripts, instanced sub-scenes, groups). The verb 'Show' and resource 'scene's node hierarchy' make the purpose explicit and distinct from sibling tools like node_inspect which focus on a single node.

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 phrase 'Read this before editing any scene' provides an explicit when-to-use directive, positioning this as a prerequisite read operation before any scene modifications. It does not name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it during scene editing workflows.

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