scene_outline

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real value: it discloses that the tree comes from ParentID linkage, that attached scripts appear under each actor's Scripts rather than as child nodes, and that truncation can occur when a depth/node limit is hit. These are behavioral traits not captured by annotations.

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 compact sentences, each front-loading a distinct fact: purpose, structural construction rule, script placement, and truncation semantics. No filler, though slightly dense for a single read tool.

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?

An output schema exists and the description usefully explains the Truncated field's meaning. Given low tool complexity and an output schema, the definition is largely complete; only richer path/error guidance is missing.

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 path parameter, so the description must compensate. It implies the path points to a .scene/.prefab file, which is useful, but it does not address absolute vs relative paths, error behavior for missing files, or format constraints. It adds modest meaning over the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads a .scene/.prefab file's actor tree. It also clarifies the structural semantics (ParentID linkage rather than file order). It does not name sibling tools like scene_list or editor_scene_graph, so an agent must infer the difference from context, but the purpose itself is 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?

The implied use case is clear — inspect a scene or prefab file's actor hierarchy. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as scene_list, scene_find_actor, or editor_scene_graph, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The distinction is left to inference.

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