statistica_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key stateful traits: the window is visible and persists across calls without start/stop cycling. But it references an undocumented 'attach:true' parameter, which is misleading about how the persistence is actually invoked, and it says nothing about how the window is shut down.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the lifecycle clarification. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (visible window, persistent) comes first.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema launch tool the description covers purpose and persistence reasonably. The gaps are the dangling 'attach:true' reference (not a schema parameter) and the absence of any shutdown/cleanup guidance, which an agent managing a long-running GUI application would need.

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%, so both 'path' and 'sheet' are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's only parameter-relevant statement ('optionally opening a file') merely echoes 'path', and its mention of 'attach:true' refers to a parameter absent from the schema.

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 and resource ('Launch a visible STATISTICA window') plus the optional file-open behavior, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not need sibling differentiation since no sibling launches the application, though it also does not contrast itself with the analysis/export siblings.

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?

It implies the intended lifecycle ('leave it running', then edit the same window on subsequent calls instead of restarting), which is real usage guidance. However, the instruction hinges on a parameter ('attach:true') that does not exist in the schema, and there is no guidance on when to close or re-launch.

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