scene_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does disclose the key state-changing modes ('replace' or 'append'). It also limits loading to concrete file categories, which helps an agent predict side effects. It stops short of explicitly warning that replace discards the current scene, but the mode name conveys it.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action and accepted file types front-loaded and mode values at the end. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 low-complexity open command with only two parameters, the description covers file types, mode choices, and the basic action. It omits prerequisites such as whether CLO must be running and what the call returns, but those are not essential for calling this tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds the allowed values for mode ('replace' or 'append') and characterizes path by listing valid extension families. It does not define path format or mode semantics in full detail, hence not a 5.

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 a clear resource ('a file in CLO'), then enumerates the accepted formats (.zprj, .zpac, .avt, .dxf, pattern .json, .obj/.fbx). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling scene_* tools such as scene_clear, scene_save, and scene_export.

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 the tool is for loading existing supported files into CLO and offers a replace/append mode, but it never names an alternative or states when not to use it. An agent must infer that tools like avatar_load or pattern_create may be more targeted for subset operations.

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