Åpne atom i Finder, Code, Claude eller kartet (fra kortet)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it requires the bridge to be running and restricts targets to a fixed list. It does not explain the return/success signal, but the added constraints are substantive.

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 compact sentences with no filler: context first, then the precise actions and constraints. Every clause earns its place, though the structure is more utilitarian than optimally front-loaded for an agent scanning for the core action.

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 rich annotations, a fully documented two-parameter schema with an enum, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what opens, the prerequisite, and the target restriction. It only omits what a successful invocation returns, which is a minor gap for a launcher tool.

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%, so the baseline would be 3. The description improves on this by mapping each enum target ('finder', 'code', 'claude', 'kart') to a concrete outcome, giving the agent meaning beyond the raw enum values. The 'id' parameter is not further described, keeping it from a 5.

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 gives a specific verb ('Åpner') and enumerates exactly what is opened for each case: the atom's file in Finder, the repo in Claude Code, the Desktop project in Claude, or the atom in the map. It is easy to distinguish from the data-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with any of them.

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?

It states the invoking context ('Brukes av Tua-kortet'), a prerequisite ('krever at broen kjører'), and a scope limit ('Fast liste, ingen andre mål'). It does not name alternative tools or spell out when an agent should prefer this over, say, tua_get, but the context is clear enough for correct use.

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