editor_read_current_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-destructive lookup, but the description doesn't disclose whether the editor must be running, whether unsaved changes are reflected, what 'live' means operationally, or what error conditions may arise.

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 extremely concise — four words with no filler and good front-loading. It earns a high score for efficiency, though the brevity sacrifices clarifying detail about return values or behavior.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations. The description only names the resource, leaving unclear what the returned scene tree contains, whether it includes node properties/hierarchy details, and how it differs from file-based scene reads. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters) and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is required in this case.

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 the specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource ('live editor scene tree'), and the tool name identifies 'current_scene.' It conveys the operation reasonably but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like editor_get_running_scene_tree or read_scene, so it stops 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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over siblings such as editor_get_running_scene_tree, runtime_get_tree, read_scene, or editor_get_open_scene. It also doesn't state prerequisites like needing an open scene or whether this should be used only during editing sessions.

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