Get scene config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false and openWorldHint false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description still adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing a return characteristic — that the response includes the high-risk entities the scene would affect when activated — which is behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and the payload hint appended. It is efficient, though the trailing clause 'with the high risk entities it would change when activated' is slightly compressed and reads as an afterthought rather than a clearly labelled return description.

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?

The tool is simple — one required string parameter — and there is no output schema, so the description's mention of the high-risk-entity payload is an important compensating detail. What remains unstated is the overall shape of the returned config, which is a minor gap given the tool's narrow scope.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented with a concrete example ('scene.movie_night.'). The description restates the same dual id-or-entity-id semantics without adding format details, so it neither adds nor detracts meaningfully — baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read the stored config of a scene') and clarifies that lookup is by config id OR entity id, which is not obvious from the schema alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling list_scenes, but the singular 'a scene' versus a listing makes the scope inferable.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting one scene's configuration, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no mention of when list_scenes or get_entity_details would be preferable, and no prerequisites. Adequate for a simple single-resource reader, but it leaves the sibling routing to inference.

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