open_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses supported input formats and that the tool returns a document ID, but it does not mention potential side effects, what happens on invalid paths, or whether import creates a new document versus opening an existing one.

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, compact sentence that leads with the primary action and supported formats, then states the return value. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema information.

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 tool this is reasonably complete, but the lack of annotations, output schema, and explicit relationship to sibling open/import tools leaves some gaps. An agent would benefit from knowing whether this is the right tool for opening existing documents by ID or only for loading files from disk.

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 provides only a 'path' string with no description coverage. The tool description partially compensates by indicating the path should point to supported formats (M3D/A3D or STEP/IGES/STL). While it does not specify path resolution or format details, the single 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 states a specific verb ('Open'/'import'), the target resource (native M3D/A3D or STEP/IGES/STL files), and the key output (an explicit document ID). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_document, which likely operates on already-created documents rather than file paths.

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 files from a path, and the format list ('M3D/A3D or STEP/IGES/STL') gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over open_document, create_document, or attach_active_model, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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