open_file_locally

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention what opening a file entails (e.g., default application), potential side effects, security implications, or error handling. The output schema exists but is not described, so the behavior remains opaque.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail. Conciseness is positive, but under-specification makes it marginally usable. A score of 3 reflects adequate brevity with significant gaps.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description is not required to explain return values. However, it still fails to cover essential context: file access permissions, error cases (file not found), and whether the tool opens in a new window or blocks execution. The description is too minimal for safe 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter (file_path), the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. It fails to specify path format (absolute vs relative), valid file types, or constraints. The agent lacks guidance on how to properly populate the 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?

Description clearly states the action (open) and resource (file on local system). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like download_filled_form or get_form_visual_preview, which operate on different resource types. A score of 4 reflects clear purpose without sibling differentiation.

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. The description provides no context about prerequisites, use cases, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. This absence leaves the agent without situational awareness.

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