Open a validated local config file

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It clearly states what the tool does not do (URLs, shell commands, file creation, installer fallbacks) and that the file must be 'existing readable', but it does not disclose whether the editor opens asynchronously, what happens if the file is not found or unreadable, whether any modifications are allowed, or the return/result behavior. This is only partial transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and the exclusions are efficiently packed into the second sentence. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. It earns its length without padding.

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?

Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description should be nearly self-sufficient. However, it omits critical operational details: error handling for missing/unreadable files, whether the tool blocks or returns immediately, whether the editor is persistent, and any prerequisites (like the editor being configured). An agent is left guessing about failure modes and side effects.

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% and the description does not add any meaning to the single 'path' parameter. It does not specify that 'path' must be a filesystem path, how to format it, or any constraints beyond what the schema already includes. The description mentions 'local file' but does not tie that explicitly to the parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Open'), a precise resource ('one existing readable local file'), and the method ('through Omarchy's configured editor'). It also excludes non-file inputs (URLs, shell commands) and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like local_utility_open or local_tui_launch by focusing on file opening. This is unambiguous and sets it apart.

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 provides exclusions ('No URLs, shell commands, file creation, or installer fallbacks') which implicitly define when not to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state the typical use case (e.g., 'Use this to open config files'). The usage context is implied through the title and exclusions, but the description lacks a direct comparison to sibling tools.

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