scene_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds significant behavioral context: it runs the engine, resolves inherited scenes, and explains why this tool is needed (LSP reads only .gd files). No contradiction with 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, but slightly verbose in places (e.g., repeated mention of engine resolution). It is efficient but not perfectly concise.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists what data is returned, explains the resolution process, prerequisites, and the tool's raison d'être. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to understand when and how to use the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description does not add extra semantics about the parameter. The schema already describes 'files' sufficiently, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and defines the resource as 'Godot's own resolved view of a scene', listing explicit details (node tree, types, scripts, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gdscript_references and gdscript_rename by explaining that those read .gd files only, making purpose clear and differentiated.

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 provides clear context: runs the engine, requires a Godot binary, and implicitly contrasts with siblings by explaining the .gd file limitation. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use vs. when not to use' guidance and only names a couple of alternatives, not all relevant siblings.

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