Open an existing Illustrator/vector file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the primary effect (active document) but omits any disclosure about error handling, file permissions, what happens to the current document, or side effects of opening. For a state-changing operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the action, supported formats, and key effect in an efficient manner.

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 open operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and effect. It lacks detail on failure modes or handling of currently open documents, but these are minor for an open operation. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 100% and the single parameter (path) is fully described with an example. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb (Opens) and resource (file from disk), specific formats listed, and the effect of making it the active document. This distinguishes it from create/save/export siblings without ambiguity.

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 context is clear: use this to load an existing file. It doesn't explicitly exclude creation or saving, but the description's scope is obvious. No explicit alternatives are named, but the sibling list makes the differentiation apparent.

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