get_open_scenes

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists open scenes and requires an open editor, but does not describe the return format, error conditions, or side effects (presumably read-only). The prerequisite is a precondition, not a behavior. This is minimal at best.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and includes the one critical condition. No filler, no repetition. It earns a 5 for efficiency.

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 (no params, no output schema), so the description is nearly sufficient. However, it does not reveal what the scene list looks like (names, paths, objects) or how errors are reported. Given the absence of annotations, a bit more detail on the return value would help an agent use it correctly.

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, and the schema is fully covered (100% coverage vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists'), resource ('open scenes'), and context ('in editor'). The purpose is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like run_scene or inspect_scene_tree. A brief contrast would push it to 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?

Provides a prerequisite ('requires open editor') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No mention of exclusions, complementary tools, or typical use cases. The agent is left to infer when this is the right call.

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