scene_get_hierarchy

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 only describes the output format but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as performance impact for large scenes, read-only nature, or required permissions. The tool name implies reading, but transparency is minimal.

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 that captures the essence without any wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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 has no parameters and an output schema likely exists (context signals indicate so), the description provides sufficient context for a simple retrieval tool. It could be improved by clarifying what 'full scene hierarchy' includes (e.g., nested objects, transforms), but it is largely 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?

The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, the baseline is 4 for zero parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter info.

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 'Get' and the resource 'full scene hierarchy', and specifies the output format as a JSON-formatted string. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'list_scenes' which likely returns only scene 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools like 'list_scenes', 'create_scene', or other scene-related tools. There is no context about appropriate usage or exclusions.

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