text.open

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states that it opens a file into a data-block, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing data-blocks, creates a new one, changes active selection, or any access requirements). This lack of detail hinders safe usage.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks essential details beyond the basic action. It is appropriate in length but sacrifices informativeness for brevity, earning a mid-range score.

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 lack of output schema and the presence of many sibling text tools, the description fails to explain what 'open' entails (e.g., does it return a reference, modify state, require prior file existence). It is insufficient for an agent to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 has two parameters (name, path) with zero description coverage. The tool description only mentions 'Text file path' implicitly through the action context, but fails to explain the purpose of the optional 'name' parameter or any format constraints on 'path'. This leaves critical parameter semantics unspecified.

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' and the resource 'text file into a Text data-block', indicating the primary action and target. It is specific enough to distinguish from related siblings like text.read or text.create, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest sibling tools for related tasks, leaving the user to infer context from the tool name alone.

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