Am I the only one who finds arbitrary restrictions in games, either because the technology couldn't cope, or because the game designer knows how you want to play better than you do, or just because, really annoying? If there's a door there, it should open. If it won't open, there shouldn't be a door there. How hard is this?
Easy answer, almost impossible.
Buildings have doors, how many buildings do you want in this game? Is this game set outdoors in a city how many doors can you see? Now, consider that on the other side of the door must now exist a room, for example a 20 floor building must have 20 individually created floors, devided into maybe 30 apartments for a residentual building or say 4 for a commercial building which are each going to need some their own assets or they are going to look the same. Lets say optimistically 200 man hours per floor to get it to fairly rough quality (skip concept art and iteration, re-use most assets), 20 floors per building, that's 4,000 man hours per building which at $30 an hour (average for 3d artists in US) is $120,000. One building, done poorly with absolutely nothing interesting inside.
So what do you want to do? Have a game with no buildings? But buildings work well in games and players play well in cities! Have no doors in buildings? But that would look strange! Have a game where all the buildings are the same inside? But that would defeat the purpose of having them, since players would have no reason to enter them!
One of the key thing about making a better game, nomatter from design, art, engineering is not adding more but working out clever ways of not doing things. Time and money are finite, GTA 5 cost $135 million to make, the vast majority of which was spent adding detail to the world, but most buildings are still empty shells. The key is to cue players to not notice what you don't have.
The problem you have with Tomb Raider is not a detail problem but a communication problem. From a design problem they have failed to communicate to you what can be grabbed and what cannot. Sure, they could have gone the Assassin's Creed route and procedually made everything grabbable, but Assassin's Creed's climbing wasn't much fun at all for that very reason, there was no searching and pondering aspect, you just push him in the general direction and he climbs. So it leaves you with the problem of making an attractive environment with a finite amount of interaction and they handled it, imperfectly, but as best they could.
The thing is, when making a game, adding more is not always possible. Skill in design means making the same amount seem like more.