open_network

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as a data-destroying operation, and the description adds real value beyond it: it specifies exactly what is destroyed (unsaved changes in the current network), how to avoid it, and the non-obvious trait that it 'never shows a dialog', which matters for a headless agent.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it opens, the destructive consequence and its mitigation, and the no-dialog behavior. Nothing is padded and the critical warning is front-loaded after the purpose.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers destruction, mitigation, and the dialog behavior. The only minor gap is not routing to sibling tools for saving or creating networks.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds semantic weight by clarifying that save_current_to must be supplied *before* opening or the current network's changes are lost, reinforcing the schema's default-null warning.

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 verb (open) and resource (.pkt/.pka file), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like new_network and save_network. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 conditional 'unless save_current_to gives a path' implies usage context and warns about data loss, but it never names save_network or new_network as alternatives, so an agent must infer when opening is preferable to creating or saving.

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