open_scene

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

Annotations are false (not read-only, not destructive), and the description adds a behavioral trait ('makes it the edited scene'). However, no information is given about side effects (e.g., unsaved changes, closing current scene) or error conditions. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the key action. However, it could benefit from additional structured details (e.g., parameter description) without losing conciseness.

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 required param, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It omits information about return behavior, error handling, and prerequisite conditions (e.g., scene must be loaded). The description is incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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 description only hints that the path uses the res:// protocol, but does not explain the parameter's format, constraints, or behavior (e.g., what happens if the path is invalid). With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so meaningfully.

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 action ('Open a scene'), identifies the resource ('by res:// path'), and adds specific behavioral context ('makes it the edited scene'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like play_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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (to make a scene the edited scene) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools like play_scene for running scenes.

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