fire_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core action (triggering a scene) and its immediate effect (playing clips), but lacks details about side effects, prerequisites (e.g., playback transport state), reversibility, or error behavior. For a mutation-like action, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action, followed by a single parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and what the parameter means, but lacks context about session view concepts, related tools, or edge cases. It is not incomplete enough to be unusable, but also not richly detailed.

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 provides only a title for scene_index with no description. The description adds 'The index of the scene to fire', which clarifies the parameter's meaning but does not specify indexing convention (0-based/1-based) or valid range. This is minimal added value, hence a 3.

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 tool's function: 'Fire (trigger) a scene to play all clips in that row.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fire_clip (which targets individual clips) and stop_scene (which stops scenes).

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 for launching scenes but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to use this tool versus fire_clip or other scene-related tools. The context 'play all clips in that row' signals its purpose, but no direct exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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