Open Document

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (new document creation) and the make_active parameter's effect on focus. It also mentions the distinction from import_scene's merge behavior. This is adequate, though it doesn't detail error handling or interactions with the current document beyond the implicit new-document creation.

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?

Two sentences with a parenthetical, no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the key distinction from import_scene is immediately presented. Efficient and well-structured.

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 load operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the parameter behavior, and the critical sibling distinction. It doesn't need to discuss return values. Could mention error conditions or current document state, but those are minor gaps for a straightforward tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds marginal value by restating the effect of make_active and its default, slightly clarifying how to use it. This aligns with baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 loads a Cinema 4D scene file as a new document, a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly differentiates from import_scene, making the purpose unambiguous for an agent.

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 specifically contrasts with import_scene, explaining that this opens a file as its own document rather than merging. This gives clear when-to-use guidance for the most relevant sibling, though it doesn't enumerate all potential alternatives like new_document.

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