Open in RayoMD GUI

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the ~1s polling/reload cycle, the condition under which a rewrite is picked up (changed on disk and no unsaved buffer edits), and the hard prerequisites (rayomd-gui on PATH or RAYOMD_GUI_PATH, a desktop session, Wayland on Linux). The readOnlyHint=true is consistent, since the tool itself only opens a viewer even though the user may edit.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then prerequisites last, which is the right order. The middle sentence on reload semantics is long and comma-chained, but every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and prerequisites and side effects are well documented. The one real gap is whether the call blocks until the GUI is dismissed or returns immediately, which materially affects how an agent sequences subsequent calls.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema coverage ("The .md file to open"), the schema already carries the semantics, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no path constraints such as absolute vs relative paths or behavior for a nonexistent file.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Opens a Markdown file in RayoMD GUI") plus the user-facing purpose ("for the user to read or edit"), which cleanly separates it from the sibling converters markdown_to_pdf and book_to_pdf. An agent can pick this over the PDF tools without opening either schema.

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 clause "for the user to read or edit" makes the intended situation clear: interactive desktop viewing/editing rather than conversion or recovery. It stops short of explicitly excluding alternatives (e.g. "use markdown_to_pdf to produce a PDF instead"), so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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