open_workspace_in_ide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'Open' and does not mention side effects such as launching a GUI application, focusing windows, returning immediately, or requiring the IDE to be installed. The default-IDE note is useful but is more about parameter behavior than operational behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: a clear purpose sentence followed by a concise Args block. There is no redundant or filler text, and the parameter details are structured for quick scanning.

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 tool with only two flat parameters and an output schema, the invocation details are largely present. However, the lack of usage guidance alongside several closely related sibling workspace tools leaves an agent without enough context to reliably choose between this tool and open_antigravity_workspace or launch_antigravity_workspace.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters, and it does: workspace_path is defined as a directory path, and ide specifies target IDE with the two accepted values 'vs_code' and 'antigravity' plus default behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare string 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?

The description identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Open an existing workspace directory in VS Code or Antigravity IDE.' It clearly says what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling open_antigravity_workspace beyond mentioning both VS Code and Antigravity as targets.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_antigravity_workspace, launch_antigravity_workspace, or inspect_antigravity_workspace. It states only what the tool does and a parameter default, leaving the choice of tool to inference.

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