magic_sheet_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose side effects, permissions, whether it changes the current display, or what happens when called; this is a significant transparency gap for a command that alters console state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and the optional parameter without filler. Every word 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?

For a simple opening action with two integer parameters, the description covers the basic operation, but it lacks any context about output, result, error cases, or how an agent should resolve the magic-sheet/view IDs. With no output schema and no annotations, these gaps matter.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description at least connects 'sheet' to the magic sheet and 'view' to the specific view. It does not explain how IDs are obtained, what values are valid, or what happens if view is omitted beyond implying it is optional.

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 names a concrete action ('Open') and resource ('a magic sheet'), and adds the optional 'view' dimension. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or explain how this differs from the other console commands.

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 wording implies this tool is for displaying a magic sheet. The intended use is inferable, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites/constraints.

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