unity_scene_open

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-like behavior (opening a scene) but does not disclose any side effects (e.g., closing current scene, unsaved changes warnings). No mention of permissions or state changes. A score of 3 is appropriate as it's minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the path format clarification from the main action.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential information. However, it lacks context about behavior when the scene fails to open, error handling, or relationship with other tools like unity_scene_save. A score of 3 is adequate for a simple tool.

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 already has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the path format (relative to Assets/) and clarifying the port parameter's purpose (parallel-safe routing). However, it does not add new semantic information beyond the 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 action ('Open'), the resource ('a scene'), and the method ('by its asset path relative to Assets/'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like unity_scene_new, unity_scene_save, and unity_scene_info, which have different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it implies usage for opening existing scenes, and the path parameter format is specified. No guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if scene is already open) or prerequisites.

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