affinity_open

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

Annotations already cover mutability and idempotency, but the description adds real behavior the annotations cannot: it will launch an external application, it blocks until the local connector is ready, and it establishes a connection. What it does not disclose is failure behavior or any timeout/retry characteristics when the launch or connector wait fails.

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?

Two sentences, action sequence front-loaded, and the second sentence immediately qualifies necessity. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials: what it launches, what it waits on, and why an agent might call it. It stops short of saying what the call returns or does on failure, which would be the only remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies there is nothing to configure.

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?

States a specific sequence of actions on a named resource: launch Affinity if not running, wait for the local MCP connector, then connect. That is clearly separable from sibling tools like affinity_status (which presumably only reports state) and affinity_open_document (which opens a file).

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('warm Affinity up ahead of time') and an explicit when-not-to-bother ('Other tools do this automatically'), which tells the agent this call is optional and latency-motivated rather than required before other calls.

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