Read a scene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds genuine value by clarifying the operation is purely a file read that does not launch the engine, and by disclosing the breadth of the returned tree. It omits any note on behavior for large scenes or malformed paths.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the resource and returned content front-loaded and the read-only guarantee second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With read-only annotations covering the safety profile, a complete parameter schema, and the description enumerating the returned tree contents in lieu of an output schema, an agent has enough to call this correctly. Only rendering/format details of the tree output are left unspecified, which is minor.

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 scenePath, projectPath, and includeProperties are already fully documented in the schema. The description's content list does not map back to parameters such as includeProperties, so it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the baseline.

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 ('Show the node tree of a .tscn scene') and enumerates exactly what the tree contains: names, types, scripts, instanced scenes, groups, signals. This clearly separates it from mutating siblings like create_scene, add_node, and save_scene.

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 clause 'Reads the file only; does not run Godot' implicitly tells the agent this is the static-inspection option and not a substitute for run_project or launch_editor. However, it never names an alternative tool or states a positive when-to-use condition (e.g. 'use before editing with add_node'), so usage is only implied.

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