open_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool opens a folder in the file manager, but does not mention what happens if the path does not exist, whether it creates missing folders, or if any output is returned. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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?

The description is a single sentence with an example, front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted text, and the example is directly relevant. This is exemplary conciseness for a simple tool.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context about edge cases (e.g., invalid paths, cross-platform behavior) and whether it returns a success indicator. Given the absence of annotations, a bit more detail would improve completeness, but it's not drastically inadequate.

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?

The schema has no description for the 'path' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The example 'path='C:/Users/xxx/Desktop'' provides a concrete format, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's meaning or any constraints (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths). The parameter name is self-explanatory but the description adds only marginal value.

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 tool's function: 'Open folder in system file manager.' It uses a specific verb (open) and resource (folder), and the distinction from siblings like find_file (searching) and run_cli (command execution) is evident from the phrasing.

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 tool's usage is implied by the description and the provided example, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. For instance, it doesn't mention that find_file might be more appropriate for locating files or that run_cli is for command-line operations.

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