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. It discloses that the tool opens for editing, unpacks, parses, and caches in memory. It does not discuss destructive potential, authentication needs, or side effects like file locking, but it does mention concurrency behavior.

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 brief summary, a technical explanation, and parameter documentation. It is not excessively long, but could be slightly more succinct. Overall, it effectively conveys necessary information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 that the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers opening behavior, handle management, and concurrent usage. For a tool that opens documents, the description is fairly complete and covers key aspects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains both parameters: path as an absolute file path, and document_handle as an optional handle for concurrent sessions with default behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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, and explains the underlying process (unpacking, parsing, caching). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the opening action, which is unique among the many document manipulation tools listed.

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 that multiple documents can be open concurrently under different handles, and provides guidance on using the optional handle for isolation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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