cascadeur_open_scene

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful context about file format and path restriction, but it does not disclose that opening a scene may replace the current scene or discard unsaved changes. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and object and includes the key path constraint. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 one-parameter open-operation with destructiveHint=true, the description covers the core facts: what file to open, where the path must live, and that it is a .casc scene. It could mention the effect on the current scene, but annotations already communicate destructiveness and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverageci, the description carries the full weight for the only parameter. Stating that the path must be an 'absolute path inside the workspace' adds essential meaning beyond the bare 'path' title, and the .casc reference implies the expected file type.

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 names the action ('Open'), the resource (a .casc scene), and a specific constraint (absolute path inside the workspace). This distinguishes it from siblings like cascadeur_new_scene, cascadeur_activate_scene, or cascadeur_list_scenes without further digging.

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 implies usage: open an existing .casc scene file from disk. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives such as cascadeur_new_scene or cascadeur_activate_scene, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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