get_scene_exports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying that output includes 'current values, Variant types and hints', but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what happens with invalid paths, or any potential side effects. The 'List' verb suggests read-only, but this is implicit rather than explicit.

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 is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every phrase contributes meaningful detail (which nodes, what is listed, output components), making it appropriately concise without waste.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the main output aspects but leaves gaps: it does not clarify the 'path' parameter's exact semantics, whether the scene must be open, or what an invalid path returns. The lack of an output schema and annotations increases the need for this information, so overall completeness is only adequate.

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?

There is only one parameter ('path') and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the path refers to a scene file, but it does not describe expected format, file extension, absolute vs relative paths, or error behavior. This is minimal compensation at best.

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 a specific verb ('List') and identifies a clear resource ('every node's exported script variables in a scene file'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on exported script variables, which is unique among the provided sibling names.

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 is for inspecting scene file exports but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_scene_file_content' or 'read_resource'. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, so it relies on the user to infer usage.

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