femm_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema: opening a solution unlocks the post-processor tools. It omits important open semantics such as whether an already-open document is replaced, error behavior for missing/invalid files, and whether the opened item is locked.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core action plus accepted file types are front-loaded. The path-handling caveat follows logically. Slightly dense but every clause 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?

There is no output schema or annotation to lean on, so the description must cover purpose, path handling, and side effects – which it largely does. It stops short of explaining the 'session' parameter and the document-replacement semantics, which are the remaining gaps for a stateful open operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real value for 'path' (accepted extensions, relative-path resolution, forward-slash requirement), but the second parameter 'session' (default 'main') is never mentioned in the description or schema, leaving its meaning and role undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Open') and resource (FEMM model or solution files), enumerating the accepted extensions, so the agent knows exactly what this does. It implicitly distinguishes model vs. solution loading by noting the post-processor side effect, but does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like femm_load_solution or femm_session_open.

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?

Gives useful invocation context (relative paths resolve against the session work dir, use forward slashes) and implies 'use this before working on a file'. However, it never says when to prefer this over femm_load_solution, femm_session_open, or femm_new_document, so the routing decision among siblings is left to inference.

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