open_terminal

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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world call. The description adds nothing about what actually happens: whether the command runs in an interactive shell, whether it blocks, which emulator/shell is used, or what is returned (no output schema exists to fill that 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and its optional modifiers come first.

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 process-spawning tool with no output schema and no annotations covering side effects, the description leaves out the information that matters most to an agent: whether the call returns immediately or waits, and what handle/result it yields.

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 each parameter has its own description, so the baseline applies. The description echoes 'command' and 'working directory' but omits 'title' and adds no format detail (e.g., shell syntax, whether command is run via sh -c).

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Open a new terminal window'. The optional command/cwd mention scopes it further. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like launch_app or open_url, but no sibling appears to be a competing terminal tool, so ambiguity is low.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over launch_app/open_url/open_file_manager, nor any note that it spawns a terminal emulator process. The agent must infer the use case entirely.

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