Open Database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses meaningful behavior: attach semantics when a live instance holds the file, and that the headless path creates and analyzes the .i64. It omits what happens to a previously opened database, error/hang behavior, and whether state persists, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and modal capability, closed with the ordering directive. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 six-parameter open/attach tool with no output schema, the description conveys the action, the two modes, and priority in the workflow. Return values need not be explained since there is no output schema, though details on prior-database handling would round it out.

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 schema already documents all six parameters including the headless mode values and timeout semantics. The description repeats the path behavior without adding new meaning, matching the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema.

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 ('Open a binary or .i64 database in IDA') and enumerates the two execution paths (attach to live instance vs. headless idalib worker). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_databases, select_database, and close_database.

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?

Gives a strong sequencing directive ('Call this first'), which tells the agent where this tool sits in a workflow. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with select_database or explain when a database is already open and a different tool should be used instead.

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