Open CityJSON from a Docker mount

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions constraints like allowed root and chat attachment exclusion, but does not disclose side effects, whether the file becomes active state, what happens on success, or error behavior. 'Open' is ambiguous regarding its lasting impact.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, with the core purpose and the key constraint front-loaded. The alternative is stated efficiently without repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly adequate but leaves open what happens after opening and how the resulting file is used by later tools. It also does not explain the allowed-root concept further. It is usable but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema already documents it fully (full server-visible path, not a chat attachment). The description mirrors that and adds the advanced/conventional framing, but no new parameter-level details.

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?

Clearly states the operation: opening a CityJSON file by a full server-visible path within an allowed root. It also distinguishes itself from cityjson_import, which uses a filename for inbox files.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool (advanced path-based access inside allowed root) and when to use the alternative (cityjson_import for files in the input inbox). This provides strong routing guidance.

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