osc_scene_recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Recall a saved scene' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify if this loads/applies the scene (potentially destructive) or just retrieves it (non-destructive). It also omits details like permissions needed, side effects (e.g., changing mixer settings), or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand its behavior.

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 with a single sentence, 'Recall a saved scene', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity (a tool that likely interacts with audio/mixer scenes) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recall' does operationally (e.g., loads settings, triggers an action), what the expected outcome is, or how it fits with sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively in real-world scenarios.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single parameter 'scene' as a number from 1-100. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a 'scene' represents in context (e.g., a mixer preset). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Recall a saved scene' clearly states the action (recall) and resource (saved scene), but it's vague about what 'recall' entails (e.g., loading, applying, or retrieving scene data). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_scene_save' (which saves scenes) or 'osc_get_scene_name' (which retrieves scene names), leaving ambiguity about its specific function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used for loading scenes in a mixer/audio context, or how it differs from other scene-related tools like 'osc_scene_save' or 'osc_get_scene_name'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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