cavalry_open_sceneOpen a .cv scene file from an absolute path, prompting about unsaved changes unless force is true to discard them.
Open a .cv scene file. Unless force is true, Cavalry may ask the user about unsaved changes in the current scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | Discard unsaved changes without asking. Defaults to false. | |
| filePath | Yes | Absolute path to a .cv file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: Cavalry may interactively prompt the user about unsaved changes unless force is true. It stops short of saying what happens to the current scene on success or on file-not-found.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the conditional force behavior immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 two-parameter tool with a full-schema description and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the one non-obvious behavior (user prompting around unsaved changes). No output schema exists, but the return is simple enough that this is a minor omission.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema; the description's mention of force reinforces but does not extend that meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Open a .cv scene file'), which is unambiguous against siblings like cavalry_save_scene and cavalry_scene_info. It does not explicitly name the contrasting sibling, but the file-type qualifier makes the scope clear.
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?
Usage is implied (load a scene file into Cavalry) and the description gives the condition that governs the force parameter, but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as save_scene or scene_info, nor any prerequisite about the current scene being replaced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.