open_part

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key state change ('becomes the current part'), but does not mention whether the previous part is closed, whether unsaved changes are affected, or what happens if the file does not exist. This is a minimum-viable disclosure for a simple open operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Open an existing .sldprt file') before the outcome. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 open operation, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the file type and the resulting state. However, it omits relevant context such as whether the current part is replaced or closed, and does not mention error behavior for invalid paths. These gaps are notable given there is no output schema or annotations to fill them.

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 has one parameter, 'path', with no description (0% coverage). The description implicitly clarifies that the path should reference an existing .sldprt file, but it does not add details about absolute vs relative paths or file URI formats. The parameter name is self-explanatory, so the description adds modest value.

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 states the specific verb 'Open' and the exact resource type '.sldprt file', and clarifies the intended consequence: 'it becomes the current part.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like new_part, open_assembly, and close_part.

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 phrase 'existing .sldprt file' gives clear context for when to invoke this tool: when an existing part should be loaded. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource type and 'existing' qualifier strongly imply the appropriate usage scenario.

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