ide-get-active-scene

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

With no annotations, the description adds moderate value by noting that there may be no active scene. However, it does not discuss any side effects, required permissions, or other behavioral traits. For a simple read operation, it is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose. However, the first sentence contains a typo ('editorÍ') and awkward phrasing, which detract slightly from its structure.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and mentions the possibility of no active scene. It does not specify the return format, but overall it provides sufficient context for a basic getter tool.

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 has no parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 applies as per guidelines.

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 tool as retrieving the active scene, which is the one currently being edited. However, the wording 'Get the scene has the focus' contains a grammatical error and a stray character, which slightly reduces clarity. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'ide-get-all-scenes-in-project'.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools like 'ide-open-scene' or 'ide-get-all-scenes-in-project'. No usage context or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use.

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