cavalry_open_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a scene file is opened, without mentioning side effects, prerequisites, failure modes, or whether the current scene is replaced. This is minimal and lacks useful behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and clear, though it could potentially elaborate on behavior without becoming bloated.

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 file-opening tool with one well-documented parameter, the description conveys the core purpose. However, it omits any detail about what happens after opening, return values, or integration with the rest of the Cavalry workflow, making it minimally acceptable.

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 already fully describes the single parameter (`filePath` as an absolute path to the .cv file), and the description adds no additional meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('Cavalry scene file (.cv)'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as cavalry_save_scene and cavalry_run_script by focusing on loading an existing scene file.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use cavalry_open_scene before other scene manipulation tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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