Open Document

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

While annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation possible) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive), the description does not explain what happens to the current document state (e.g., does it close the current document? Does it load into a new tab?). No disclosure of permissions or side effects beyond 'open'.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with a list of supported formats and an argument list. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose and format examples.

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 open tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does and the required input. However, it could mention behavior if the file doesn't exist or if the document is already open.

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 description includes the path parameter with the same definition as the input schema ('absolute path to the file to open'). With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 states the tool opens existing files in Illustrator and lists supported formats (.ai, .pdf, etc.). It specifies the verb 'open' and the resource 'file', distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_document' or 'close_document'.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (open existing files), but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'illustrator_place_image' or 'illustrator_create_document'. No 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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