open_visudesigner

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 only states that omitting the path shows available stations, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits like side effects, permissions needed, or what 'see available stations' exactly means. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence serves a purpose with no unnecessary words.

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 annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameter usage, and a condition for omission. However, it could mention post-opening behavior or prerequisites, but is adequate.

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 100% with a clear description for 'lvp_path'. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema, explaining when to omit and why, and when it's required. Note the minor typo 'lcp_path' in the description versus 'lvp_path' in schema, but still adds meaning.

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 verb 'Open' and the resource 'VISUDesigner with a station from the active project'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'close_visudesigner' and provides specific action details.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to omit the parameter ('to see available stations') and when it's required ('only when multiple .lvp files exist'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the context is clear.

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