Scene Get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only lists returned data fields. It says nothing about read-only semantics, permission requirements, error behavior for missing scenes, or whether artifacts are expensive to fetch. Listing fields is useful but far short of what an unannotated tool needs.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why behavioral and parameter gaps remain.

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 output schema covers the return shape, so the description needn't explain values, but the input parameters are undocumented and there are no annotations. For a read tool with many overlapping siblings, the definition leaves out the disambiguation and identifier semantics an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0% for two required parameters, and the description adds no meaning beyond the bare names project_id and scene_id. It doesn't state identifier formats, whether scene_id is scoped to project_id, or what happens when they don't match.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a scene') and enumerates the payload it returns (plan, code, status, artifacts), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like scene_inspect, scene_list, or scene_review, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which read tool to pick.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus scene_inspect, scene_list, or scene_review, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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