open_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions modes (web/word/pdf/ppt) but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it modifies files, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool that interacts with local files, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Open a local file/path') and adds necessary detail about modes. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how modes affect behavior (e.g., what 'web' rendering entails). For a file operation tool, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal value by hinting at 'user preference or explicit mode' for 'open_as', but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema specifies for parameters like 'theme' or 'auto_play'.

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 target ('a local file/path'), specifying it uses user preference or explicit modes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'render_markdown' or 'create_slideshow', which might handle similar file types but with different purposes.

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 mentions using 'user preference or explicit mode' but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'render_markdown' for markdown files or 'export_document' for exporting. It lacks explicit when/when-not scenarios or named alternatives.

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