open_3d_files

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a persistent scene_id and URL, appends to existing scenes, requires explicit supporting files (no implicit reads), and advises inspection to verify loading. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Open local point clouds/meshes/splats/animated models together'), and every sentence adds a necessary constraint or behavior (scene_id usage, supporting files, root restriction, return value).

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?

The description covers key elements: file types, append behavior, supporting-file requirement, root restriction, and return value (with output schema handling the return format). However, it fails to explain the 'open_browser' parameter, which is a notable gap. It also doesn't address error scenarios or limits beyond the root constraint, making it incomplete for a tool with multiple optional behaviors.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains scene_id ('to append while preserving camera and existing objects') and implicitly defines paths via the supported file types. However, it completely omits the 'open_browser' parameter, leaving it unexplained. Thus, it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 verb 'Open' and the resource: 'local point clouds/meshes/splats/animated models together'. It differentiates from sibling open_3d_url by emphasizing 'local' and 'no implicit disk or network reads', making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage instructions: 'Pass scene_id to append while preserving camera and existing objects' and requires explicit supporting .bin/textures for GLTF/DAE/FBX. It also states the root restriction. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like open_3d_url for remote files, leaving some inference to the agent.

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