iyke_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool opens a tab in the focused pane and specifies parameter dependencies for each kind. However, it does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., if the pane is not focused) or side effects (e.g., if a tab with the same content already exists).

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 three sentences long, front-loading the primary action ('Open a new tab in the focused pane') and then concisely listing the kind-to-parameter mapping. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 has 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality for each kind. It is complete enough for an agent to understand how to open different tab types. Minor omissions like error cases or return value are acceptable for this level of complexity.

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 80%, meaning most parameters already have descriptions. The description adds a structured overview of how each kind maps to its parameter, but this largely reiterates schema information. It offers marginal added value beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 starts with 'Open a new tab in the focused pane,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It further elaborates on the 'kind' parameter to distinguish different view types (route, terminal, chat, artifact, mini-app). This clearly defines the tool's action and scope, differentiating it from sibling tools like iyke_close or iyke_split.

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 explains what the tool does and maps each kind to its required parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., iyke_split for splitting panes, iyke_focus for focusing). Usage context is implied but not clearly bounded.

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