ghostrigger_open_creature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sends a POST to /api/open_utc and that GhostRigger will locate and display the blueprint for editing. It does not explicitly state whether the operation mutates anything or what happens on failure, but for an 'open' action the behavioral disclosure is reasonably complete.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, KB, and Example sections. It is reasonably concise and front-loads the main purpose. The KB link adds navigational context, though the example is weak because it uses 'Example' as a resref value instead of a real creature resource reference.

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 two-parameter open tool, the description is mostly complete: it gives the endpoint, the effect, parameter roles, a return shape, and an example. It does not mention prerequisites such as GhostRigger being reachable or what occurs when the resref is not found, but those gaps are minor given the low complexity.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for both parameters: resref is called a 'Creature resource reference' with an example, and module_dir is marked as optional. However, module_dir's semantics remain thin ('Optional module directory path'), and the example uses a placeholder 'Example' rather than a realistic resref.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Tell GhostRigger to open a KotOR UTC creature blueprint.' It also identifies the endpoint (POST /api/open_utc) and the action ('open_utc'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghostrigger_open_model. An agent can clearly tell this tool is for opening UTC creature blueprints specifically.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when you need to open a KotOR UTC creature blueprint for editing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with read-only resource listing or model-opening sibling tools.

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