as_open_file

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

The description discloses the dual fallback mechanism, the instant nature of the preferred method, and the return format. Annotations (idempotentHint=true) are consistent. No contradiction, and the description adds value beyond annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, behavioral details, args, return. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 description covers the core functionality, fallback behavior, and return value. With a nested input schema and only one parameter, it is largely complete. Minor gap: no explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., must have Android Studio running, but that is implied).

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 already provides good descriptions for file, line, and column (100% coverage within the nested object). The description adds no extra meaning for parameters, just confirms their presence. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (open), the resource (file), and the context (running Android Studio). It distinguishes from siblings like as_open_project which opens projects. The optional line/column detail adds precision.

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 description explains the preferred method (IDE server) and fallback (studio64.exe), which helps the agent understand the behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like adb push for placing files.

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