open_visio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two meaningful behaviors: auto-detection of installation and no-op if already running. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, or what happens if the path is invalid. For a simple startup tool, this is reasonably transparent and adds value beyond a generic 'start' statement.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the main action, followed by two short behavioral clarifications. There is no wasted wording or irrelevance; it is optimally concise and well structured.

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—one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects—the description provides sufficient context for an agent to call it correctly. It states the action, the auto-detection behavior, and the idempotency. Minor gaps, such as behavior when Visio is not installed or when a provided path fails, do not critically hinder correct usage for a typical agent.

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 description coverage is 100% for the only parameter (visioPath). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states; the schema already says 'Optional explicit path to VISIO.EXE.' Per the baseline for high coverage, the description earns a neutral 3 without adding new semantics.

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 action ('Start Microsoft Visio') and distinguishes this tool from its siblings (which operate on documents) by specifying the resource. The added behavior 'Does nothing if already running' further clarifies its purpose.

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 implies when to use it—when you want to start Visio—but provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_visio_status. The context about auto-detection and idempotency gives some situational context, but no exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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