Get one scene's text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It conveys that this is a read-only retrieval operation returning the full scene text, but it does not mention error behavior, whether invalid indexes produce failures, or any document-switching side effects. For a simple read operation this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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 with no wasted words, and the key source of sceneIndex is included. The description is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 small read-only tool with two documented parameters, the description plus schema gives an agent enough to call it correctly: which index to pass and how to optionally target a document. Lack of an output schema is mitigated by the phrase 'full text', and no complex behavior needs explanation.

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 100%, with both parameters already documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing that sceneIndex comes from beat_get_scenes; docIndex semantics are only in the schema.

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 ('Get'), resource ('full text of a single scene'), and identifying parameter ('sceneIndex'), with provenance from beat_get_scenes. This clearly distinguishes it from beat_get_text and other scene-writing siblings.

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 makes clear that sceneIndex must come from beat_get_scenes, and the schema adds that docIndex can be omitted to target the frontmost document. It does not explicitly contrast when to prefer this over beat_get_text, but the scoping to a single scene makes the intended use fairly clear.

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