open_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses key behaviors: import, quantization, size limit, exclusivity of inputs. However, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., if both or neither source given), whether the file must exist for path, or the return value after creation. Missing details lower transparency.

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: first states action and exclusive sources, second states constraints. No filler words. Front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 input constraints adequately but omits output behavior (e.g., returns document ID?), error cases, and any side effects on existing documents. Given no output schema or annotations, more detail on success conditions would improve completeness.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters. The description adds value by summarizing the quantization behavior of max_colors and reinforcing exclusivity of png_base64 and path. However, the schema already explains each parameter well, so the description's added semantics are marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action (import PNG as new document), the two exclusive sources, and constraints (quantizing, max_colors, max 256x256). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_document' (no import) and 'import_image' (likely no quantization or size limit).

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 states when to use (importing a PNG with quantization and size limit) and clarifies mutual exclusivity of the two sources. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the constraints are clear enough for appropriate selection.

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