list_previs_review_scenes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: the snapshots are immutable, and the backing Review Room is a separately started local companion that an MCP connection does not launch. It omits what happens when the room is not running (error vs empty list) and whether results are capped.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with what is listed and what is returned, followed by the one operational caveat an agent needs. No filler or restated schema content.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape (URLs) and the startup prerequisite. The remaining gap is failure behavior when the Review Room is down, which an agent would want before calling it in a fresh session.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level noise, which is correct here.

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 uses a specific verb ("List") plus a concrete resource ("immutable 3D snapshots in the local Review Room") and even states part of the return payload (browser URLs). It is clearly distinct from the mutating sibling import_previs_review_scene, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before importing or recording review notes, but the description never says when to call it versus import_previs_review_scene or get_previs_review_notes. Its one concrete guideline is a precondition (the Review Room must already be running) rather than a use-case condition.

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