inspect_scene_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-modifying nature ('without modifying'), which is a key behavioral trait. But it does not mention potential issues like cycles, depth limits, or what the returned data looks like.

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, clear sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, and there is no redundant information.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not explain what the inspection returns. For an agent to use the result, it needs to know the format or structure of the returned scene tree data. The description is minimal and leaves this entirely unspecified.

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 only 33% (only projectPath is described). The tool description does not explain scenePath or maxDepth, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the name and context. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('inspect'), a resource ('scene tree'), and a scope ('recursively' and 'without modifying'). This distinguishes it from siblings like inspect_node (single node) and modifying tools like add_node/remove_node.

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 phrase 'recursively' implies using this tool when a full hierarchy is needed, and 'without modifying' implies a read-only context. However, there is no explicit comparison with alternatives like inspect_node or any 'when to use' guidance.

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