inspect_scene_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Returns node hierarchy' without indicating whether this is a read-only operation, how the hierarchy is structured (e.g., full tree or immediate children), or any potential side effects. It is too terse to convey meaningful behavioral traits beyond the obvious.

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—only three words—but this brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks the structure needed to convey essential information, such as parameter specifics or usage context. While every word earns its place, it omits crucial details, making it insufficiently informative.

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 complexity of the tool's environment (many sibling tools, no output schema, undocumented parameter), the description is incomplete. An agent needs to know what scene_path refers to, what the hierarchy includes (e.g., nodes only or properties as well), and how it differs from related tools. The current description leaves these gaps unaddressed, making it barely adequate for correct 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 input schema has a single parameter, scene_path, with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description does not mention scene_path at all, so it adds no meaning about what the parameter expects or how it is used. With zero coverage, the description must compensate, and it fails to do so.

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 states a clear verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('node hierarchy'), which immediately conveys the tool's core function. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like find_nodes or get_node_properties, so an agent may struggle to know which one to pick for a given task.

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. No mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and description alone, which is inadequate given the large set of similar sibling tools.

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