open_scene

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

The description adds the behavioral detail that it makes the scene the edited scene, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention potential side effects like handling unsaved changes, which is a mild gap for an operation that changes editor state.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the parameter format, and the outcome in a concise manner. Every word contributes, with no filler or redundant 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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, simple action), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how the path is specified, and the result. It could mention error behavior, but for a straightforward editor command, this is largely sufficient.

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 schema only provides the parameter name 'path' with a string type and no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying the format as a res:// path, which adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('scene'), and explicitly identifies the res:// path format and the editor context. The parenthetical clarifies that it sets the edited scene, distinguishing it from sibling tools like instance_scene or play_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 clearly implies usage for editing a scene in the editor, distinguishing it from playing or instancing. It provides context that this tool is for making a scene the current edited one, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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