lira_open_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: LIRA is launched if not running, and the opened model becomes the active one. It does not say what happens to a currently open/active model, how the path is resolved, or what error surfaces if the file is missing.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the side effects in a parenthetical. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is a simple one-parameter operation. Still, for a state-mutating open call with zero annotations, the description should say whether an already-open model is replaced and how failure is reported.

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 0% for the single `path` parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful constraints — the path points to a .lir model file rather than a model name or directory — but says nothing about relative vs absolute paths or quoting.

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?

States a specific verb (open) and resource (.lir model file), plus the two side effects: launching LIRA if needed and making the model active. It is distinguishable from lira_import_text_model and lira_create_model by name alone, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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 on when to choose this over lira_import_text_model, lira_create_model, or lira_list_models, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint is the implicit 'you have a .lir file' condition baked into the purpose statement.

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