open_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that file_path requires a .sbs inside an allowed folder, which is a real constraint the agent needs, but says nothing about whether opening replaces the current editor state, what happens on failure, or permissions.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then per-parameter hints. Nearly zero waste; slightly terse to the point of omission on the graph parameter.

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 three-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers most of what an agent needs to attempt a call. It falls short by leaving 'graph' undefined and by not clarifying how the three selectors interact.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives genuine meaning for two of three parameters (file_path loads a .sbs, package is a uid or path) but leaves 'graph' completely unexplained and does not state precedence or mutual exclusivity among the three.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Abre un grafo en el editor'), which separates it from siblings like list_graphs and create_graph. It does not name those alternatives explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of list_graphs (to find a graph) or create_graph (to make one), nor any mention of prerequisites. The reader must infer the workflow entirely from the sibling names.

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