read_decal

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

The description states it lists Decal nodes with size and texture info, conveying a read-only list operation. However, it does not disclose behavior around the optional scene_path (e.g., whether it defaults to the current scene, searches all scenes, or how it filters), nor does it describe the return structure. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but provides only minimal transparency.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise, even though it sacrifices necessary details for completeness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse for an agent to understand the full context. It does not explain the scene_path semantics, return values, or how this tool relates to other list/read tools in the large sibling set, so the description is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 only parameter, scene_path, has a cryptic schema using 'anyOf' with 'not {}' and 'string', and 0% description coverage. The tool description never mentions this parameter, providing no help on how to set it, what values are valid, or what effect it has on the listing behavior.

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 'List' and identifies the resource 'Decal nodes' with details 'size and texture info.' This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_texture_info or list_lights by clearly specifying the resource type and the type of information returned.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_scene or editor_set_decal_param. The description does not mention the scene_path parameter or any use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for choosing this tool or understanding its scope.

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