apple_pages_open

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the app is launched and its window or import dialogs may appear. That UI side effect and potential blocking dialog is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It does not cover failure modes or what a successful open yields, so it is not a 5.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, side-effect caveat second. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 tool with no output schema and annotations covering the write/open-world profile, the description covers purpose and side effects adequately. Gaps remain around the path argument and what the caller gets back (e.g., whether a handle or confirmation is returned for chaining into set_text/save), which matters in a multi-tool workflow.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate and it does not mention 'path' at all. 'Local Pages document' hints that the value is a filesystem location, but there is no guidance on absolute vs. relative paths or whether the extension is required.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Open a local Pages document'. This clearly separates it from apple_pages_read_text, apple_pages_create and apple_pages_list_documents among the siblings. It stops short of naming the adjacent tools or the scope boundary (open vs. read content), so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 word 'local' implies usage context and a boundary (filesystem documents rather than iCloud/remote), which is a useful selection signal. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance, no mention that content retrieval requires apple_pages_read_text, and no prerequisites. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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