clyphx_scene

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It only describes syntax and examples, lacking details on side effects, permissions, destructiveness, or error behavior. For a mutation tool, more disclosure is needed.

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?

Extremely concise: four lines with the syntax and three key examples. No wasted words, front-loaded with the essential 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is adequate but leaves gaps: no explanation of return values, constraints (e.g., valid scene numbers), or how it differs from sibling tools. Misses opportunity to fully contextualize.

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 single 'action' parameter has 0% schema coverage, but the description explains the required syntax (SCENE_NUMBER/ACTION) and gives concrete examples, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it executes a ClyphX Pro scene action with a specific syntax, and lists common actions. However, it could more explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like fire_scene or set_scene_name by noting it is for general custom actions.

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?

Examples are given for common actions (play, name, color), but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs dedicated scene tools like fire_scene or set_scene_name. The syntax implies a generic action, but no when-not-to-use advice.

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