ghostrigger_open_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP endpoint, that the model is located in the game library and displayed in the 3-D viewport, and that the response is a status/error JSON. It does not state side effects, whether the operation is non-destructive, permissions required, or failure semantics beyond a generic error string.

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 a summary, endpoint, Args, Returns, KB, and Example, and it front-loads the key action. Minor redundancy exists in the placeholder example 'ghostrigger_open_model(resref="Example")', which is not as informative as the earlier real resref examples, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations, the description provides the endpoint, parameter semantics, return shape, and an example, making invocation practical. It lacks an explicit side-effect or non-destructive note and alternative-tool routing, but an agent can safely call this tool based on the provided information.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by defining resref with concrete examples ('n_bastila', 'plc_bench') and explaining module_dir as optional with empty-string behavior meaning the game installation library. This gives the agent complete guidance for both arguments.

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 clearly states the verb 'open' and the resource 'KotOR MDL model' for viewing/editing, adding the concrete implementation detail 'POST /api/open_mdl'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghostrigger_open_creature and ghostrigger_export_model by specifying the exact type of asset.

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 implies the tool is for opening a model for viewing/editing and explains the optional module_dir scenario when a model lives inside a specific module. However, it does not mention alternatives or conditions for when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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