open_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the primary action and outcome (opening a file and making it the edited scene), but it does not mention potential side effects like handling unsaved changes, closing the current scene, or error behavior. This is minimal but not misleading, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous information. The structure is clear and efficient.

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 covers the core behavior but omits important details such as error handling, what happens if the file doesn't exist, and whether the current scene is replaced or if confirmation is needed. It is minimally complete for basic understanding but lacks richness for an AI agent to anticipate edge cases.

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 one parameter 'path' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description only implies that 'path' refers to the scene file to open, but it does not clarify the expected format (e.g., project-relative vs absolute), file extension requirements, or any constraints. The description fails to sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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: opening an existing scene file and making it the edited scene. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_scene, save_scene, or play_scene, which have different purposes. The verb 'open' and resource 'scene file' are specific and 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 implies the tool is for opening an existing scene for editing, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like create_scene or delete_scene. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tool references. The usage context is evident from the purpose, but the description lacks explicit guidance.

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