get_scene_item_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool reads visibility state and is non-mute, which is useful. However, it does not disclose the return type (boolean implied), potential errors (e.g., invalid scene or item ID), or any side effects. It provides basic behavioral context but leaves 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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 getter with two clear parameters and no output schema, the description is largely adequate. It specifies the visibility semantic and implicitly indicates a boolean result. However, it could be more complete by noting how to obtain scene_item_id or mentioning the return value type, but the simplicity keeps it at a high level.

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 0%, and the description does not mention parameters at all. The parameter names 'scene_name' and 'scene_item_id' are somewhat self-explanatory, but no guidance is given on how to obtain valid values (e.g., that scene_item_id comes from scene item lists). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('scene item'), and clearly states the exact semantic ('currently visible (shown/hidden, not mute)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_scene_item_enabled and clarifies it is not about mute state, which could be confused with get_input_mute.

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 the tool is for checking visibility state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like set_scene_item_enabled or get_input_mute. The parenthetical 'not mute' hints at an exclusion, but no explicit usage scenario or alternative names are provided.

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