get_scene_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It does disclose the return record format (name/type/path/script) and scope (currently edited scene), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it describe any potential limitations or error conditions. The word 'Get' implies a read, but the description could more explicitly reassure the agent about safety.

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, concise sentence of 15 words. It front-loads the primary action and resource ('Get the node tree...') and includes the output format without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter), the description should thoroughly explain its use. While it states the purpose and return format, it omits any explanation of 'max_depth', which is essential for correctly using the tool. There is no output schema or annotations to fill the gap. The description is incomplete for fully informed invocation.

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 input schema defines a single optional parameter 'max_depth' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention 'max_depth' at all, leaving its semantics completely unexplained. The agent cannot determine what values mean (e.g., -1 likely means unlimited depth) or how it affects the result. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool's function: 'Get the node tree of the currently edited scene as nested name/type/path/script records'. It specifies the resource (currently edited scene) and the output format (nested name/type/path/script records), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_game_scene_tree (runtime scene tree) and get_scene_file_content (scene file content).

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 that this tool is for the editor's current scene, providing clear context for when it would be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'use get_game_scene_tree for the running game' or 'use get_scene_dependencies for dependencies'. The context is present but guidance is not fully explicit.

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