scene_open

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

The description adds one useful behavioral trait: no save prompt appears by default, which is consistent with the quiet parameter. It does not, however, explicitly disclose that opening will replace the current scene and unsaved changes may be lost, leaving the destructive consequence mostly to the destructiveHint annotation.

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 minimal, front-loaded with the core action, and immediately states the key default behavior. The bilingual pairing is compact and contains no filler.

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 two-parameter open operation, the description plus schema and annotations are mostly sufficient. The main gap is that it does not explicitly warn that the current scene is replaced, although the destructiveHint annotation and the quiet parameter's schema description strongly imply it.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents path and quiet, including quiet's default. The description's 'no save prompt by default' only restates the schema's quiet semantics, so it adds no meaningful parameter information beyond the structured definition.

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 the specific action 'Open' and the exact resource '.max scene file', so the purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings such as scene_merge or scene_new, making the differentiation implicit rather than stated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like scene_merge or scene_new, and no exclusions or prerequisites. It relies entirely on the verb 'Open' to imply usage.

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