open_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well. It discloses that the tool may prompt to save the current scene (unless force=true), which is important behavioral context for a file-opening operation. It also describes the return format (dict with success, file_path, message). However, it doesn't mention potential errors, performance implications, or authentication requirements.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose first. The parameter explanations and examples are useful but slightly verbose (could be more concise). Every sentence earns its place by adding necessary information, though the structure could be tighter.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good completeness. It covers purpose, parameters with semantics, return format, and examples. However, it lacks information about error conditions, file format compatibility, or what happens if the file doesn't exist, which would make it fully comprehensive.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics. It explains that 'file_path' must be a complete path to a .max file with an example, and 'force' controls whether to save current changes with clear true/false meanings and default behavior. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the specific action ('打开一个场景文件' - open a scene file) and resource ('.max 场景文件' - .max scene file) in 3ds Max. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'new_scene' (creates new), 'save_scene' (saves current), and 'import_file' (imports assets rather than opening full scenes). The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

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 context about when to use this tool (to load .max scene files) and implicitly distinguishes it from 'new_scene' (for creating empty scenes) and 'import_file' (for importing assets). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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