gaea_open_graph

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 fails to mention that launching a desktop GUI is a side effect, whether the call blocks, or what happens when dryRun defaults to true — the most significant undisclosed 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 single 9-word sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters, a default-true dryRun, and zero schema-level descriptions. Brevity here comes at the cost of necessary information.

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?

An agent calling this tool cannot determine what dryRun=true means, what gaeaExe is for, whether Gaea must be installed, or what the call returns. The default-true dryRun may cause the call to not actually open the graph, making the description actively incomplete for correct invocation.

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 needed to explain all three parameters. It only hints that `graph` refers to a .terrain file; `dryRun` and `gaeaExe` are entirely unexplained.

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 ('Open'), a resource ('.terrain graph'), and a target ('Gaea desktop application'). Naming the desktop app distinguishes this from sibling read/introspection tools like gaea_list_graphs and gaea_inspect_graph, though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites such as Gaea being installed. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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