document_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return values ('outline' and conditional 'notes') and a normalization behavior that does not change rendering, but omits error behavior, permission requirements, and whether the normalization alters the file on disk.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then uses a compact colon list to explain return values and normalization cases. Every sentence earns its place and no information is repeated.

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 open tool with no output schema or annotations, the description supplies the essential purpose and return details. Minor gaps remain around error handling and the precise meaning of 'current' for downstream tools, but the core is 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'path' parameter. It adds that the file must exist and can be .svg or .svgz, but does not clarify path format (absolute vs. relative) or other constraints.

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'), resource ('existing SVG'), and scope ('.svg or .svgz') with the effect of making it current. The word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from document_create, and the return behavior is clearly bounded.

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 says what the tool does but does not specify when to use it versus alternatives such as document_create, inspect, or import_file. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage context entirely to inference.

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