app.file_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals one key behavioral aspect: 'force is required if current file is dirty'. However, it does not disclose failure modes, permissions, or what happens to the current state (e.g., unsaved changes discarded only if force=True). More details would improve transparency.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the critical conditional behavior efficiently, with no wasted words.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers essential aspects but lacks details about return values, error handling, and behavior in edge cases (e.g., invalid path). It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only provides titles ('Absolute path to .blend file', 'Discard unsaved changes'), with 0% description coverage. The description adds contextual meaning by clarifying that force is conditional ('required if current file is dirty'), which goes beyond the static schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Open an existing .blend file by absolute path'. It identifies the specific action (open) and the resource type (.blend file), and distinguishes it from sibling file tools like app.file_new or app.file_save.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., app.file_new, app.file_revert). It does not list exclusions or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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