editor_get_running_scene_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the condition (game running) but does not describe the return format, whether it is a snapshot or live reference, or what happens if the game is not running. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it efficient 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?

The tool is simple with zero parameters, but there is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value shape. It only says 'live scene tree' without describing its structure or format, which is a notable gap for an agent that must interpret the result. Additional detail about the return type would make it complete.

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, so according to the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details because there are none to describe, and the schema already covers 100% of the (empty) parameter set.

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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'live scene tree', and the scope 'while the game is running'. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like editor_read_current_scene or read_scene which operate on the editor tree or files.

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 'while the game is running' implies the primary use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like runtime_get_tree or read_scene. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the usage context is only implicit.

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