rhino_open

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by mentioning the binding to a doc_id, but does not disclose potential side effects like replacing the current document or error conditions. With annotation already indicating a mutation operation, the description offers limited extra transparency.

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 sentence that front- loads the main action and resource. It is concise with no unnecessary words, earning its place.

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 description lacks details about error handling, file existence, or whether opening a file replaces the current document. Given that an output schema exists, return values are not required, but key contextual information for a file-open operation is missing.

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?

Despite a schema_description_coverage of 0% (only top-level 'args' lacking description), the nested schema provides clear descriptions for 'path' and 'doc_id'. The tool description mentions binding to a doc_id but does not elaborate on the required 'path' parameter, failing to compensate for the low coverage. The agent might need to infer parameter semantics from the nested schema alone.

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 action ('Open'), the resource ('.3dm file'), and the additional operation ('bind it to a doc_id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gh_open_file by specifying the file type and the binding behavior.

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, prerequisites (e.g., file existence, path format), or typical use cases. The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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