open_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fuzzy matching and optional project scope, but does not disclose what happens on multiple matches, missing documents, or whether opening changes the active document or has side effects.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides the most important qualifier ('fuzzy') and optional parameter context.

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 simple open-by-name tool, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks guidance on alternatives, error behavior, and return value, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill those gaps. Still, the core purpose and primary parameter semantics are conveyed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining that 'name' is fuzzy-matched and that 'project' is an optional scope. However, it does not clarify the expected format or behavior of the project parameter beyond 'optional scope'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') with a clear resource ('document') and adds the key qualifier 'by name (fuzzy)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_docs or list_open_docs. The optional project scope further clarifies the tool's intended operation.

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 implies this tool is for opening a document when you know its name, with optional project scoping. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_docs or list_open_docs, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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