pt_open_network

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is known. The description usefully qualifies the destruction as opt-in via "only when requested," adding real context, but it says nothing about failure behavior (nonexistent path, invalid .pkt, occupied workspace with discard_current=false) or whether unsaved work is silently lost.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and short enough to scan in one pass. The trailing Chinese duplicate (打开本地pkt。) is redundant with the English for an agent that already parsed the first clause, though it costs little.

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 destructive two-parameter workspace-replacing operation with no output schema, an agent still needs to know the return/confirmation shape and the exact failure mode when the workspace is occupied. Those gaps are meaningful, though the annotations and full schema coverage carry most of the load.

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 100%, so both `path` and `discard_current` are documented in the schema itself. The description's "replacing the occupied workspace only when requested" reinforces the discard_current semantics but adds no format, path-resolution, or default behavior detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

"Open a local .pkt" gives a specific verb plus resource, and "replacing the occupied workspace only when requested" scopes the mutation. It is distinguishable from pt_new_network (create) and pt_save_network (save) by implication, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase "only when requested" implies a conditional path (opt-in discard) but never states when to pick this over pt_new_network or pt_save_network, nor what happens if the workspace is occupied and discard is not requested. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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