open_in_editor

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the operation is non-blocking, the window runs independently of the server, on-disk edits are auto-detected and reloaded, the return value is the launched process id, and stopping is done by closing the window. Annotations only give the safety profile, so this is a rich, valuable disclosure.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then lifecycle behavior, then return value and stopping instructions. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 GUI-launching tool with no output schema, the description covers what is needed: non-blocking behavior, process independence, reload semantics, the returned process id, and how to terminate watching. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the description never discusses the single 'filename' parameter, its format, or whether paths are relative or absolute. 'Open a sprite' hints that the string should be a sprite file, but this is minimal compensation for a fully undocumented parameter.

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 and resource (open a sprite in the Aseprite GUI window) plus the key distinguishing mode (non-blocking, live viewing). This clearly separates it from headless export/render siblings like render_preview or export_png, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear context for use: live viewing while continuing to edit with other tools, with the reload behavior explained. It does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g., render_preview) or a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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