open_gripper

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full transparency burden. It does reveal a meaningful behavior ('immediate target read-back') and clearly states the action, but it omits side effects, preconditions, blocking behavior, and error semantics. This is partial but not full disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action, the width source, and the read-back behavior are all conveyed compactly.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the required parameter semantics are thin, there is no usage guidance, and annotations provide no safety or execution context. For a mutating tool in a large sibling family, this description is only minimally sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain the required parameters. It only hints at 'profile' through 'declared open width' and leaves prim_path, command_id, and idempotency_key unaddressed. prim_path is inferable from the tool name but not documented.

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 a specific operation ('Open a gripper'), identifies the width source ('the profile's declared open width'), and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail ('immediate target read-back'). This clearly differentiates it from close_gripper and set_gripper_width.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Sibling tools such as set_gripper_width and close_gripper are not mentioned, so the agent must infer when profile-based opening is preferred over explicit-width setting.

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