open_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: unpacks archive, parses XML, caches in memory, and only one document open at a time. Does not mention error handling or modifications impact, but adds significant context beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences plus an args line. Every sentence adds value: purpose, unpacking process, singleton constraint, and parameter guidance. No waste.

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?

The tool has an output schema (presumably describing return value), so description need not cover returns. It explains the core action, caching behavior, and the one-open-at-a-time constraint. Could mention file existence checks, but overall sufficient for agent understanding.

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 has 0% description coverage and only a title for 'path'. The description adds 'Absolute path to the .docx file', clarifying the path must be absolute, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 'Open a .docx file for reading and editing' with specific details about unpacking and parsing. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_document, close_document, and save_document.

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 this is the initial step to work on a document and notes the single-open constraint, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_document for new files or provide guidance on prerequisites (e.g., file existence).

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