Open Input Interact

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

The description states the primary side effect—opening a dialog—and does not contradict the annotations, which mark it as idempotent and non-destructive. However, it adds little beyond those annotations, such as UI availability, failure modes, or why this differs from programmatic interaction.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently states the verb and resource, making it appropriately concise for a tool of this simplicity.

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 simple action, the schema, and the annotations, the description is minimally viable. It lacks guidance on how to choose this over sibling open-dialog tools or whether an identifier is required, but it covers the core purpose adequately for a straightforward operation.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both inputName and inputUuid at 100% coverage, so the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden. The description adds no additional parameter semantics or clarification about using one identifier versus the other.

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 uses the specific verb 'Opens' and identifies the exact resource, 'interact dialog of an input.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like obs-open-input-properties and obs-open-input-filters, which open different input dialogs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of other input dialog-opening siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided, so the usage context must be inferred solely from the tool name and description.

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