Import Scene File

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

Annotations are mostly neutral (destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), so the burden is on the description. It discloses that importing modifies the current scene and that force parameter controls namespace merging vs replacement. However, it does not mention other side effects like creating new nodes or affecting selection state. The description is moderately transparent but could be more thorough.

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 two sentences. The first sentence conveys the primary action and supported formats, and the second sentence explains a key behavior (return filtering) that helps protect token budget. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 that the tool has an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description sufficiently covers the import action, supported formats, and the forced merging behavior. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., file existence), but these are often implicit in Maya tools. Overall, it is complete enough for an AI agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no new information about the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Import a file into the current Maya scene') and lists supported formats. It distinguishes itself from siblings like scene.open (which opens a new scene) and scene.export (which exports). The note about returning only top-level transforms adds specificity.

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 implies when to use the tool (to import a file into the current scene) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. For example, it does not advise against using import when a file should be opened as a new scene instead.

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