get_scene_tree

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output (JSON) but does not clarify that the operation is read-only, how errors are handled (e.g., missing scene file), or how the optional includeProperties parameter affects the result. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that reads from disk.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, no wasted words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function and output format.

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 tool is simple with no output schema, but the description does not specify the shape of the JSON hierarchy, which is central to the tool's purpose. Context like 'returns a tree with node names and children' would improve completeness. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, but it does reinforce that the output is a hierarchy, which relates to scenePath. No gaps require compensation.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('hierarchical node tree of a scene file'), and the output format ('as JSON'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_scene or add_node, which modify scenes rather than retrieve their structure.

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—call this when you need the node hierarchy of a scene—but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., using get_project_info for broad project details). It lacks context about prerequisites like loading the project first.

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