get_scene_item_transform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists what is retrieved without stating read-only nature, potential errors, or return format. It does not explicitly say whether the operation has side effects or what coordinate system/units are used, which are relevant for an agent invoking this tool.

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 sentence that is entirely functional and front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. It contains no redundant or extraneous words, making it highly concise and properly structured.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about the return structure (e.g., exact property names, units) and error behavior. It covers the core purpose but does not fully compensate for missing annotations and output schema, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain scene_name or scene_item_id beyond implying their roles via 'a scene item's'. There is no guidance on how to obtain the scene_item_id or any format expectations, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter names alone.

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 the tool gets a scene item's transform, listing specific attributes: position, scale, rotation, and crop. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from other getter tools like get_scene_item_enabled or get_scene_item_locked. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but the scope is clear from the listed fields.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining scene_item_id via get_scene_item_list) or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool being a getter, which may be sufficient for simple cases but lacks explicit direction.

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