open_path

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and method, omitting potential side effects (e.g., opening a GUI app), failure modes (e.g., no default handler), or whether it is synchronous/safe. Minimal disclosure.

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 one sentence with no filler. The [ACTION] prefix is somewhat unconventional but does not harm conciseness. Every word is necessary.

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 tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is marginally adequate. However, it lacks information on error handling, success feedback, or behavior when the target does not exist. Leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that the 'target' parameter can be a file, folder, or URL. However, it does not clarify the format (absolute/relative paths, URL structure), leaving ambiguity. Adds some value over the schema but incomplete.

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 identifies the action ('Open') and the resource ('a file/folder/URL'), and specifies the method ('default handler (xdg-open)'). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on bluetooth, system info, and other unrelated operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The description lacks context on typical use cases or constraints.

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