open_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions read-only and visibility choices but does not state side effects like whether opening a document changes the active session, whether unsaved changes are affected, or what happens with unsupported paths. The description adds some context but is insufficient for a state-changing 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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. However, it is so compact that it sacrifices informative content, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not enumerate the six native formats, explain the opening behavior or consequences, or document the visible/read-only options beyond naming them. An agent would likely need additional information to call it correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It only vaguely alludes to read-only and visibility choices, which are already inferable from parameter names. It gives no explanation of what 'path' should contain, accepted formats, or how defaults behave, leaving a significant gap.

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 specific resource ('any of the six native document formats'), and explicit behavioral modifiers ('read-only/visibility choices'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_documents or create_document, and the scope is concrete enough to avoid confusion with open_model.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_model or insert_component. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or tips for selecting this tool over siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and sibling list.

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