Open one product

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, so the description's main job is to add what the tool exposes. It does that by listing the returned aspects (name, version, skill, download, ops), which is useful given there is no output schema. It does not address error behavior or return format, but the annotation lowers the burden here.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action and parameter stated first. The trailing 'Argument: slug' is slightly redundant with the input schema, but the overall wording is efficient and has no filler.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description provides a workable level of context: the identifying parameter and the main fields returned. However, it leaves some ambiguity around terms like 'ops' and gives no indication of what happens when the slug is not found, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of the slug parameter. It does indicate that slug is the lookup key for identifying one product, which is the minimum needed for a single required string parameter. It does not provide slug format, constraints, or examples, but the simple one-parameter case is adequately served.

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 action ('Open') and resource ('one product'), and specifies the identifying key (slug) and the facets returned (name, version, skill, download, ops). It is distinct enough from the sibling runtime_* tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 usage context is implied: an agent should call this when it needs to open a product by slug. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over closely related siblings such as runtime_run, runtime_manifest, or runtime_session_open, and no exclusions are provided.

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