get_scene_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not disclose whether dependencies are resolved recursively, what happens for invalid paths, or any permission requirements. The output fields (path, uid, type) are stated, but deeper behavioral traits are missing.

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 sentence that immediately front-loads the verb and object. Every word is purposeful, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the input (scene/resource file) and the output characteristics (path, uid, type). It stops short of describing the exact return structure (e.g., an array of dependency objects) and does not cover error cases, but this level of detail is acceptable for a listing 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'path' refers to a scene or resource file, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify whether the path should be absolute, relative to the project, or a UID, leaving some ambiguity for the single parameter.

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 'List' and identifies the resource as 'scene or resource file', clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like detect_circular_dependencies or find_node_references. It also specifies the output includes path, uid and type, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 the tool should be used when you need to know a scene or resource's dependencies, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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