open_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently describes that this tool changes the active page/window and lists the supported pages, which is the key behavior an agent needs to know. It does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but for a simple UI navigation action the disclosure is strong.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and packs the valid options into a compact list. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 UI navigation tool with no annotations, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: the action, the target, and the accepted page values. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to document return behavior.

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 only a bare string parameter with 0% description coverage and no enum, so the description must compensate. It does so by enumerating the valid page values: media, cut, edit, fusion, color, fairlight, and deliver. This is meaningfully more than the schema alone provides, though it stops short of explicitly saying these are the only accepted values.

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 a specific action ('Switch the Resolve window to a page') and enumerates the exact page targets. This distinguishes it from most sibling tools, which operate on timelines, clips, or media rather than the visible workspace.

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 intended use—navigating the Resolve UI so the user can view a change—is implied clearly by the description. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead, so an agent is left to infer the boundary from the action itself.

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