game_get_scene_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not clarify return format, whether the full hierarchy is included, or how node references are represented. This is a minimal disclosure with meaningful gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It wastes no tokens and immediately communicates the operation and target resource.

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 zero-parameter read-only inspection tool, this description is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema or annotation, and the description does not specify what the returned scene tree structure looks like, leaving the agent to discover the response format at runtime.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies here, and no additional parameter information is needed.

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 specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('scene tree structure of the running game'). The 'running game' qualifier usefully signals runtime state rather than scene files, which helps differentiate it from tools like read_scene. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 use when the agent needs the current runtime scene hierarchy, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not mention alternatives like read_scene for editing scene files or game_get_node_info for inspecting specific nodes. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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