open_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'open', which implies a load operation but does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., missing file), whether the document becomes active, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 with no extraneous content. It directly states the action and the accepted input formats, making it maximally concise and easy to parse.

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 sibling open_visio, the description lacks any distinction or routing guidance, creating ambiguity. It also omits prerequisites like file existence or error handling. While the tool is simple, the lack of differentiation from a similarly named tool makes it incomplete for confident agent selection.

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 already fully documents the filePath parameter with a clear description of the absolute path and file types. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb 'open' with a specific resource 'existing Visio file' and lists accepted formats (.vsdx or .vsd). This distinguishes it from generic actions, but it does not differentiate from the sibling open_visio, which likely overlaps, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 like open_visio. There is no mention of prerequisites, when opening is appropriate, or any exclusions. An agent would have no basis to choose between this and the similarly named sibling.

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