load_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden — and it delivers by revealing a non-obvious behavioral trait: the loaded scene is an uneditable shell that requires segment_scene. It also states the return values (face count, bounds, floor height). It doesn't mention side effects like replacing the current scene, but for a one-parameter load tool this is a minor gap.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler: the core action, the behavioral consequence, and the return values each earn their place. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the workflow pointer in the second adds high-value routing information.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, file formats, workflow position, behavioral state, and return values. The only meaningful omission is whether loading a new scene replaces the existing scene, which is minor given the tool's simplicity and available output schema.

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 for the undocumented 'path' parameter. It partially does by specifying accepted file formats (.glb/.obj/.ply), implying path must reference a supported mesh file, but it never explicitly defines what path means, its constraints, or acceptable source locations. Adequate but not exhaustive compensation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Load a scene mesh') and enumerates supported formats (.glb/.obj/.ply). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming segment_scene as the follow-up, so an agent can distinguish loading from the 12 sibling tools without inspecting schemas.

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 sequential guidance ('call segment_scene next to make objects editable'), which establishes when this tool fits into the workflow and why the result is not immediately editable. It stops short of enumerating when-not conditions for the other siblings, but the loading-then-segmenting context is clear enough.

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