open_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing what happens on success/failure (e.g., file not found, already open, effects on current document state), which is a significant gap even for a simple open operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It earns its place but lacks additional context that could be added without harming conciseness.

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 tool is simple with one parameter, and an output schema exists (though not shown), so return values are likely covered. However, the description lacks behavioral edge cases and prerequisites, making it only minimally complete for an untrusted agent 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?

The schema has one unannotated parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage. The description provides only the '.vsdx' extension hint, which is minimal compensation. It does not clarify whether the path is absolute/relative, a file system path, or any other format, leaving the agent to guess.

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 clearly states the action ('Open') and the resource ('existing Visio document (.vsdx)'), with the file extension adding specificity. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like new_document or close_document by focusing on opening existing files.

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 phrase 'existing' implies this tool is for loading a saved file, distinguishing it from new_document. Although it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context of sibling tools makes the intended use clear.

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