get_scenes

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 does well by stating the tool returns a complete listing ('every scene') with structural semantics (scene = row of the Session grid) and practical implications (which clips launch together). It doesn't explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, but the list semantics strongly imply it; slightly more explicitness would push it to a 5.

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?

Three crisp sentences, each with a distinct job: state the action, define the domain concept, and explain the use case. The lead sentence is specific and front-loaded. Zero wasted words.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema available and a simple domain concept, the description is essentially complete. It could marginally improve by explicitly contrasting with get_session_info or noting behavior with empty sessions, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately shifts focus to the return value semantics, clarifying what 'scene' means in this context and what data gets returned (name, state, clips). Since there are no params to document, there is no additional bottom-up parameter documentation possible.

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'), a clear resource ('every scene'), and enumerates the exact scope ('name, state and which clips it holds'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like fire_scene, create_scene, and get_session_info by establishing that this is the read/listing operation for scenes, noting it covers every scene, not a subset.

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 clear usage context with 'Use this to see which clips would launch together,' telling the agent the practical reason to invoke this tool. However, it stops short of naming alternatives or excluding them explicitly (e.g., contrasting with get_session_info), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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