ai_openFile

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is contradictory-adjacent rather than informative about a file-opening mutation. The description does not say whether the opened file replaces the current document, whether an unsaved document prompt occurs, or what happens on a bad path or unsupported extension.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with app and verb, with zero filler. It is terse to the point of under-informing, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a single-parameter open tool with no output schema, the basics are covered. Key behavioral facts an agent needs (document replacement, multi-path semantics, error behavior) are still absent.

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 0% for the single 'paths' array parameter, so the description carries the burden. The listed extensions hint at acceptable inputs, but nothing is said about whether paths must be absolute, whether multiple paths produce multiple documents, or how errors on one path are handled.

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 names a specific verb ('open') and resource (Illustrator design files), and the extension list plus the 'Illustrator:' prefix distinguishes it from ps_openFile and media_import. It does not, however, distinguish it from the generic adobe_openFile sibling, which plausibly does the same thing.

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 statement of when to use this over adobe_openFile, pr_importFiles, or ai_placeFile, and no prerequisites such as whether Illustrator must already be running. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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