typora_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the launch action. It does not mention what happens if the path is invalid, whether Typora is required, or how the tool behaves (e.g., returns immediately vs. blocks). This is a minimal disclosure that leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence with no filler or repetition. The core action and target are stated succinctly, and every word contributes to meaning. No structural issues.

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 launch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify expected outcomes (e.g., does it return process info?), error behavior, and any prerequisites (e.g., Typora installed). None of this is addressed, so the description is inadequate for full contextual understanding. The presence of sibling tools like typora_status and typora_close suggests more context is needed to distinguish this from those.

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 the 'path' parameter is already well documented. The description adds a marginal clarification by listing 'text document' and 'workspace folder' as additional accepted types, but this does not meaningfully extend beyond the schema's description. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the informative load.

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 states a clear verb ('Launch'), resource ('Typora'), and target ('specific Markdown file, text document, or workspace folder'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like typora_create_document (which creates) and typora_close (which closes), making the intended action unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as typora_recent_documents or typora_create_document. The description implies opening existing content but does not state exclusions or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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