gh_open_file

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that it mutates state. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., closing the current definition, handling missing files), which would add value beyond the annotation.

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 a single concise sentence, but it lacks critical information, making it under-specified. Proper conciseness would front-load essential details, yet here it omits parameter and usage context.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, but the description does not mention what the output is or any prerequisites (e.g., an active Grasshopper session). It is not complete enough for an agent to use without additional context.

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 description does not mention any parameters, despite the input schema having a required 'path' parameter with its own description. With schema description coverage at 0%, the tool description should compensate by explaining the parameter, but it fails to do so.

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 resource 'a Grasshopper definition', which is specific to the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gh_new_canvas' or 'gh_run', but does not explicitly contrast them, preventing a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gh_new_canvas' or 'gh_save_file'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for opening a definition.

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