Get one scene

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

The description provides behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that the tool aggregates across catalogues, shows which catalogue contributed each value, discloses how disagreements are handled (the 'nobody preferred' reading published beside the winner), and notes that 'sources' restricts to one catalogue. This adds meaningful behavioral detail, though the phrasing is convoluted.

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 only three sentences, but they are densely packed and use awkward, non-standard phrasing (e.g., 'the reading nobody preferred'). It lacks front-loading of the core purpose and uses more words than necessary to convey the aggregation and conflict behavior.

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 aggregation and conflict resolution behavior, the description covers the main concepts but is cryptic. It doesn't explain the 'prefer' and 'sections' parameters, and the existing prose may confuse more than clarify. An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere, but the description itself leaves gaps for a smooth invocation.

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 description adds meaning for the 'id' parameter (identifying the scene as instance:uuid) and the 'sources' parameter (read one catalogue alone). However, it does not mention the 'prefer' or 'sections' parameters. With schema coverage at 50%, the description partially compensates but leaves important parameters undocumented in prose.

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 action 'Read one scene' and the resource (a scene identified by an instance:uuid), distinguishing it from search_scenes which searches. However, the phrasing 'from the catalogue its identifier names' is awkward, making it slightly less clear than a straightforward 'retrieve a single scene by ID'.

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 usage when you have a specific scene identifier (read one scene), but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like search_scenes or get_sources. It does mention using the 'sources' parameter to read one catalogue alone, which is parameter-level guidance, not tool-selection guidance. Overall, usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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