Read Scene File

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds the notion that the file is parsed rather than just returned raw. However, it does not disclose error behavior, project discovery details, or what happens if the scene path is invalid. Since annotations already establish the safe-read nature, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise without sacrificing the essential 'read and parse' semantics.

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 simple read-only tool, the combination of the description, schema, annotations, and output schema is reasonably complete. The main gap is the lack of routing guidance to distinguish it from similar scene/script inspection tools, but that is already scored under usage guidelines.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema carries the burden sufficiently.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('scene file'), and 'parse' hints that the result is structured rather than raw. It is not fully differentiated from sibling tools such as validate_scene or list_scenes, but it does make the core purpose unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_read_script or godot_list_scenes. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or explicit references to sibling tools.

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