open_file

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'Returns' signals a read-style operation and the output shape is disclosed. However, important behaviors such as missing-file handling, whether a graph is always immediately available, or any cost/indexing assumptions are not mentioned.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and contents, then closes with the return shape, making it easy to scan and parse for an agent.

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 tool with one required parameter, one optional format parameter, and no output schema, the description gives enough to make a valid call. The main gaps are the unexplained 'L1' concept and the fact that 'manifest' is mentioned but not defined, which could confuse an agent expecting richer context.

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 schema lacks documentation for the `file` field, and the description wisely adds semantic detail by specifying 'repo-relative path'. The `format` parameter is already fully documented in the schema with a description and enum, so no further parameter explanation is required.

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 concrete behavior: return an L1 file graph for a file, and lists the graph contents (imports, declarations, intra-file calls, cross-file jump-stubs). It also gives the output shape, so the purpose is specific and not just a restatement of the name. It stops short of a 5 because 'L1' is not defined, and no sibling tool is clearly contrasted.

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?

'For one file (repo-relative path)' is a clear usage condition and should guide an agent toward this when a per-file graph is needed. It does not explicitly say when to avoid it or name a better sibling tool, so it is one level below full guidance.

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