open_folder

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the traversal shape and anchoring root, but does not say whether the operation is read-only, what happens for invalid paths, whether results are paginated or bounded, or what 'L0' implies in practice. This is far short of the burden for an annotation-free tool.

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 twelve-word sentence with zero filler. The core concept (L0 graph, root anchoring, hierarchy shape) is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required) and the schema plus description suffice for making an initial call. However, the cryptic 'L0', the absent definition of the resulting graph's limits, and the lack of any relationship to graph siblings leave an agent unsure when this is a viable replacement for load_graph or build_graph and what exactly the result will contain.

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 50%: the format parameter is already well documented by its enum description, while root has no schema documentation. The description compensates partially by clarifying root via 'path prefix', but it does not specify what kind of path, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema. Given the 50% coverage, the description adds usable but minimal meaning.

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 identifies a specific verb+resource: opening an 'L0 folder graph' rooted at a path prefix, with an explicit contents structure ('folder->file->declarations'). It is clear what the tool produces, though 'L0' is undefined jargon and no explicit differentiation from siblings like load_graph or build_graph is made, so it does not fully separate itself.

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?

The description gives zero guidance on when to choose this tool over the many overlapping sibling tools (open_file, load_graph, build_graph, scan). No mention of conditions, exclusions, or a preferred alternative exists.

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