load_scene

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

With no annotations, the description assumes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the basic action by revealing a side effect: 'Server-side also calls cmn.invalidate_all_caches() so downstream caches reset on scene switch.' This is valuable transparency, though it omits other potential behaviors like overwriting unsaved changes or error handling.

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 two sentences, both essential. The first states the core action, the second adds a relevant side effect. No redundancy or filler, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 (one parameter, no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and a significant side effect. It does not mention return values, but none are expected, and the cache invalidation context adds completeness beyond a bare description.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'Load a .hip file' without explaining the file_path parameter's format, supported paths, or constraints. The connection between the parameter and the action is implied but not explicitly detailed.

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 tool's function: 'Load a .hip file as the current Houdini scene.' This uses a specific verb (Load), a specific resource (.hip file), and the context (current scene) which differentiates it from sibling tools like new_scene or save_scene.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'use this instead of new_scene when you need to restore a saved scene' or any prerequisites, making it ambiguous for an agent deciding between load_scene, new_scene, or serialize_scene.

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