rh_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing: 'upsert' is a mutation but no permissions, side effects, reversibility, or write semantics are disclosed. The distinction between 'read' and 'resolve' (the most important behavioral question here) is left entirely unexplained.

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 sentence that leads with the verbs and names the resource immediately, with no filler. It is efficiently structured, though it is arguably too terse for an 11-parameter tool.

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 tool with 11 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-line description leaves an agent without the information needed to call it correctly. Nothing explains the semantics of the three actions or how the identity parameters interact.

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% across 11 parameters including a nested 'constraints' object, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It loosely gestures at 'required asset roles' and 'scene context' but says nothing about project_id, scene_id, alias vs aliases, action_text, output_kind, dependencies, or sources_hash, nor how the nested required/preferred maps work.

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 pairs three specific verbs (read, resolve, upsert) with a named resource (normalized scene context and its required asset roles), mapping directly to the action enum. An agent can tell this is the scene-context tool, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling resource tools rh_asset, rh_project, or rh_work_item that share the same CRUD-style pattern.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling resource tools, nor any indication of which of the three actions (read/resolve/upsert) is appropriate in a given situation. The required project_id and scene/alias identifiers are never framed as prerequisites.

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