open_document

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool unpacks, parses, and caches the document in memory, and supports multiple concurrent handles. It does not cover error handling or file permissions, but the core behaviors are clear.

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 concise with a clear first paragraph and a structured Args list. A slight reduction in the first paragraph could improve conciseness, but it remains efficient and readable.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the opening process, handle behavior, and parameter details. It could mention that this tool is a prerequisite for many siblings, but the handle mechanism implies this.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning to both parameters: path must be absolute, and document_handle's default behavior and usage for isolation are explained, far exceeding the schema's bare type and title.

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 opens a .docx file for reading and editing, and details the unpacking, parsing, and caching process. This differentiates it from siblings like create_document or save_document.

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 explains handle management for concurrent sessions and the legacy default slot, providing clear guidance on when to use a custom handle. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives.

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