gsa_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether opening replaces the currently loaded model, whether an unsaved file is discarded, or how GWB (model) versus GWA/CSV (data) opens differ. The format list hints at differing behavior but no effect is explained.

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 sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is terse to the point of under-specification for an operation that mutates application state.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a state-changing open operation with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves the agent without the information needed to predict side effects on the current session.

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% for the single 'filename' parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does by naming the file formats the path may point to, but gives no path conventions, extension requirements, or error behavior.

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+resource ('Open ... file') and even enumerates the accepted formats (GWB/GWA/CSV), which separates it from siblings like gsa_new_file, gsa_save, and gsa_close. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this versus gsa_new_file or gsa_export_to_csv/import paths, nor any prerequisite about an existing session or whether an open file must be closed first. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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