open_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of describing behavior. It discloses the core action and the return value, but it does not explain side effects like the document being loaded into the active session or what happens if the file does not exist. The output schema fills in some of the return-structure gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the action, the document type, and the return value are all stated without redundancy.

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 tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about session side effects, error behavior, and how this tool relates to other document-management siblings, leaving some operational details to inference.

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%, so the description must add meaning beyond the raw 'path' property. It does so by specifying that the document is an FCStd file, which clarifies what the path should point to. It does not cover path format or invalid-path behavior, but the single string parameter is largely self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('FCStd document') and states that the tool returns an identity. This is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like create_document, close_document, and list_documents, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 implies the tool is for opening an existing FCStd document, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use it versus create_document, list_documents, or other sibling tools. Context makes the basic usage inferable, but there is no direct routing or exclusions.

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