get_game_scene_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful context like 'live', 'from the tree root', and 'including autoloads'. However, it doesn't disclose output format, default depth behavior, or potential performance impact, leaving behavioral transparency only partially addressed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core action and scope. It contains no filler and is easy to parse.

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 four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent. It doesn't mention return values, parameter semantics, or any specific use cases, so completeness is inadequate.

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%, and the description provides zero explanation of the four parameters (max_depth, named_only, type_filter, script_filter). The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to guess how filters affect the dump.

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 ('Dump'), the resource ('live scene tree of the running game'), and the scope ('from the tree root, including autoloads'). This distinguishes it from editor scene tree tools like get_scene_tree and find_nodes_by_type.

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 when to use this tool: when you need the runtime scene tree, not the editor scene tree. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it.

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