get_scene_file_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a non-destructive read operation, but it does not disclose details such as error handling for invalid paths, encoding, or whether the text is returned as-is. This is minimal but sufficient for a simple read tool.

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 communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It is concise while remaining informative.

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 one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and expected input. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but these are not critical for such a simple tool. It is complete enough for typical use.

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?

The schema only defines a 'path' string with 0% description coverage. The description adds context by saying 'scene file on disk', which clarifies that the path refers to a filesystem scene file, but it does not specify relative vs absolute paths or accepted formats. Partial compensation, but enough for a simple 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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and the specific resource: 'the raw .tscn text of a scene file on disk'. This distinctly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like read_resource or read_script, which target other file types. The scope is unambiguous.

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 usage by specifying the target (scene files on disk), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like read_resource or get_scene_dependencies. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, so guidance is incomplete but not misleading.

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