open_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the target type and says nothing about side effects, lifecycle implications, or what happens when a GUI instance is or is not available. Even though the schema mentions set_current and GUI availability, the description itself adds minimal behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits useful context and leaves the meaning of key terms to inference, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

Given that the schema documents both parameters and an output schema exists, a basic invocation is possible. However, the overall definition lacks explanation of the GUI versus idalib worker distinction, tool-choice semantics relative to siblings, and behavioral consequences, so it is only minimally adequate.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but both path and set_current are already well documented in the schema, including the default value and relationship to execute_python().

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 names a verb ('Attach') and a resource ('GUI database or shared managed idalib worker'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'GUI database' and 'idalib worker' are undefined jargon, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like reference or list_databases. The purpose is recognizable but vague.

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 open_database versus close_database, list_databases, or execute_python. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are stated. The only hint is buried in the set_current parameter schema, not in the main description.

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