ecamm_step_scene

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-read-only, non-open-world action, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further, such as whether the transition is immediate, what happens at sequence boundaries, or what is returned.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though very terse for the amount of behavior it leaves unexplained.

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 simple one-parameter action with no output schema, the essentials are present. It still omits boundary behavior (start/end of scene list) and confirmation of the resulting state, which an agent would want before calling.

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 single parameter's enum of 'next'/'previous' is fully self-documenting in the schema, and the description's wording matches it exactly without adding constraints or edge-case behavior. Baseline 3 for a one-parameter tool with an enum.

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 gives a specific verb ('Go to') and resource ('scene') plus the direction scope. It is clear what happens, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling ecamm_switch_scene, which likely targets a specific named 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?

Usage is only implied: use this to advance sequentially rather than jump to a named scene. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over ecamm_switch_scene or what happens at the first/last scene.

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