scene_dependency_graph

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 only says 'Analyze,' which implies a read-only operation but does not state side effects, output format, performance implications, or whether it requires a currently open scene.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single vague sentence is insufficient for an analysis tool that presumably produces a graph or report.

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?

Given the tool appears to be a complex analysis feature and there is no output schema or annotations, the description provides almost no context. It fails to explain what 'inter-scene dependencies' means, what the result looks like, or how the agent should interpret it, making the tool essentially unusable without external knowledge.

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 there is no parameter information to add beyond the empty schema. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain anything further.

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 'Analyze inter-scene dependencies' uses a verb and resource but remains vague, essentially restating the tool name without specifying what the analysis entails or what output is produced. It does not distinguish this tool from related scene-analysis tools like editor_get_dependencies or generate_cohesion_report.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or why one would choose this over sibling tools such as generate_cohesion_report or read_scene.

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