open_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses the tool's behavior: unpacks archive, parses XML, caches in memory, allows multiple open documents. It also notes legacy behavior with the default handle. However, it does not mention error conditions or side effects.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, process explanation, and parameter descriptions. It is relatively concise, though the first sentence could be slightly tightened. Overall efficient.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the main functionality and concurrency. However, it lacks details on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), and what the output contains. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'path' parameter as an absolute path and 'document_handle' as optional with detailed legacy behavior and recommendation for unique handles. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool opens a .docx file for reading and editing, with a detailed explanation of the unpacking and caching process. It uniquely identifies itself among many sibling tools, as there is no other open tool.

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 context about concurrency and handle management but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Lack of exclusions or comparisons limits guidance.

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