open_model

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

The description mentions making the document active and providing detailed model information, which adds some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., closing other documents), error handling, or permissions.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers basic purpose but lacks details on output structure (despite existing output schema), error conditions, or prerequisites. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete.

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% with clear parameter description. The description adds marginal value by stating 'supports all standard SolidWorks file formats' but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action (Open) and the resource (SolidWorks model), specifying applicable types (part, assembly, drawing). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_* or close_model.

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 description implies usage for opening existing files for further operations but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools (e.g., load_part, load_assembly) or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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