cascadeur_new_scene

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds a meaningful qualifier: 'Existing tabs are preserved,' which clarifies that the destructive aspect is limited to creating a new tab rather than destroying existing scenes. This goes beyond the annotation, though it does not specify whether the new tab becomes active or what its initial contents are.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and the key safety qualifier are front-loaded, and every clause contributes meaningful 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 zero-parameter creation tool, the description provides essential purpose and the main side-effect caveat. No output schema exists, and the sibling tools cover related scene operations, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details the description needs to add. Per the zero-parameter baseline, this is handled appropriately.

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 'Create', the object 'a new scene tab', and the scope 'Existing tabs are preserved.' This distinguishes it from related siblings like open_scene, save_scene, and activate_scene, which load, persist, or switch scenes rather than creating a fresh tab.

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 intended use is directly stated: create a new scene tab. The note that existing tabs are preserved also clarifies when it is safe to use, since it will not discard current work. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or edge cases where a different tool should be preferred.

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