list_scenes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is disclosed. The description adds the 'current Blender file' scope and a generic return format ('success, message, data') but does not provide deeper context about the contents of 'data' or pagination/limits. This is marginal added value beyond the annotations and likely the output schema.

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 appropriately concise: a single purpose statement followed by structured 'Return Format' and 'Examples' sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and key information (purpose, return shape, usage example) is front-loaded without fluff.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is fully adequate. It states the scope (current Blender file), provides the return format, includes an example invocation, and benefits from an available output schema. No further details are needed for effective 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds no parameter-level information, but that is not needed.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List all scenes in the current Blender file.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create_scene, set_active_scene, and clear_scene, and there is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 its usage through the purpose statement but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like scene_get_hierarchy or set_active_scene. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so the guidance is only implicit.

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