open_in_claude_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the verbatim write, that the brief never goes through a shell, and the no-second-window behavior plus the new_window override. It stops short of saying what the call returns or what happens on success/failure.

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 action, then the selection rationale, then the mechanism and the session-collision rule. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could say more about the return value, and the terminal parameter is left unexplained despite 0% schema coverage. Otherwise it covers the action, safety behavior, and side-effect rules thoroughly.

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% for 4 parameters. The description clarifies brief (written verbatim, not shell-interpreted) and new_window (forces a second window), and implies profile via the path template, but terminal is 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?

States a concrete verb and resources: writes a brief to <profile>/.claude/HANDOFF.md and opens Claude Code there. Very clear what happens, but it never names or contrasts the siblings (ask_claude_code, handoff_to_terminal), so an agent must infer the boundary from the one usage hint.

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?

"Use for work the user should drive themselves" gives a clear selection criterion and implicitly separates it from an agent-driven sibling, and the existing-session paragraph tells the user what to do next. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of 5.

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