open_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the core mechanism (two attachment modes: GUI database vs shared managed idalib worker), which is genuine behavioral context. However, it omits side effects — whether opening locks the database, what happens if it is already open, resource implications, or failure modes — leaving an agent guessing about the operation's consequences.

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?

A single 15-word sentence with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of omitted usage guidance and behavioral detail, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5 — it is concise but slightly under-specified for the complexity of the operation.

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 output schema exists, so return values need no description. The schema covers both parameters. However, given the tool is an open/attach operation with two modes and siblings forming a clear lifecycle (open → save/execute/close), the description lacks the usage context and side-effect disclosure needed to be fully self-sufficient. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 baseline 3 applies. The schema already documents both parameters well (path: 'Path to a local executable or IDB'; set_current: whether it becomes default for execute_python). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it neither helps nor hurts — the schema carries the load, making 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Attach') with a clear resource ('GUI database or shared managed idalib worker through IDA Nexus'). It distinguishes from siblings like save_database and close_database by focusing on the opening/attaching action, and from execute_python by naming attachment rather than execution. It loses a point because the technical jargon ('idalib worker', 'IDA Nexus') is unexplained and could confuse an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

Usage context is only implied — as an open operation it is clearly a precursor to save/close/execute, but the description never states when to choose it over siblings, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites. The schema's 'A GUI instance is used when available' hints at behavior but not at decision guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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