scene_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it explains the in-memory state preservation, the destructive effect of force_reload, the response timing ('sent only after the editor has actually switched'), and the difference between timeout and not_waited scenarios. This exceeds typical transparency expectations.

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 moderately long but every sentence serves a purpose. It is structured logically: first the core function, then conditional behaviors, then response semantics. No redundant or filler content. It could be slightly tighter, but given the complexity of the behavior, it is well-organized.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description provides necessary context on response fields (switched, settle) that are critical for safe follow-up writes. It covers edge cases (already open, timeout, synchronous contexts) and directs the user to re-check editor_state when needed. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema. It explains force_reload's destructive nature and the subtle behavior when path is already open, which the schema does not convey. However, session_id is not further elaborated beyond the schema's own description.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Open an existing scene file (.tscn) in the editor.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the opening action and including details like force_reload and response semantics that are unique to this tool.

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 provides clear usage context: explains no-op behavior when the scene is already open, explains when to use force_reload, and describes how to handle responses in synchronous contexts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but gives practical guidance on when to re-check editor_state, which implies when to use that tool.

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