Is the file open in Office

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces these with 'Changes nothing.' It adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: Windows-only platform scope, coverage of any running instance, read-only vs. editing states, unsaved changes, and lock-holding processes.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: the primary behavior, the usage triggers, and platform/side-effect clarifications. The main claim is front-loaded and no filler is present.

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 read-only tool with an output schema present and safety annotations covering side effects, the description covers the key contextual facts: what states are checked, what lock information is returned, when to call it, the platform limitation, and that it mutates nothing.

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 100%: the single file_path parameter is already documented as an absolute path to the Office file. The description does not add parameter-level semantics, but with full schema coverage it does not need to. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the precise verb ('Says whether') and the resource (a file's open status in its Office application), and specifies the full scope: any running instance, read-only or editing, unsaved changes, and which processes hold the lock. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like xlide_open_in_app and xlide_close_in_app.

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 gives explicit triggers: 'when a write reports the file is locked, before closing anything, or when the user asks.' It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of the full when/when-not guidance.

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