open_file

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 does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting current file), prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active connection), or additional accepted file types (the schema mentions XML settings). The single clause 'for playout' gives minimal context but lacks necessary behavioral detail.

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 with the core action front-loaded. It is not bloated, but it is slightly under-specified; however, for the purpose of conciseness it is well-sized.

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?

Even though the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the lack of annotations and workflow context leaves gaps. The description does not mention that opening a file might replace the current one, require a connection, or that it can open XML settings files. Given sibling tools suggest a connected workflow, more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100% for the only parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning; the schema's filepath description ('Full path to the .ts file or StreamXpress .xml settings file') is actually richer than the tool description. No bonus is warranted.

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 'Open a TS file for playout' clearly states the verb (open) and resource (a TS file) for a distinct action compared to sibling tools like connect, start, or set_rate. However, it omits that the filepath parameter can also be a StreamXpress .xml settings file, making the description slightly incomplete and narrower than the schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any indication of prerequisites (e.g., must be connected first) or typical workflow ordering (e.g., open_file before start). The description simply states the action without context.

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