open_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does add one useful rule - relative paths resolve inside the workspace - but says nothing about what happens on a missing/invalid file, whether the current structure is replaced, or whether unsaved edits are affected, which matters for a state-loading operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with the path-resolution caveat attached inline - nothing wasted. There is spare room that could have been used on the name parameter or file-missing behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the safety profile is simple. However, for a tool that loads state into a workspace, the missing notes on 'name', on failure modes, and on replacing an already-open structure leave it only minimally adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify 'path' by stating relative paths resolve to the workspace, but the optional 'name' parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Open') and resource (a structure .nbt file), so the operation is unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like new_structure, save_structure and list_structures. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with new_structure, but the action is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to choose this over new_structure or list_structures, and no prerequisites such as the file existing or replacing any currently open structure. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Open'.

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