open_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'for viewing or editing' and gives no information about side effects, such as whether the document becomes the active document, whether the file is locked, what happens if the file does not exist, or whether the operation is destructive.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant information. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description omits critical operational context: what happens after opening, whether this sets the active document for subsequent sibling operations (e.g., get_page_state, drop_shape), and what the tool returns. With no output schema and no annotations, these gaps leave an agent guessing about the workflow.

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 a single 'path' parameter with no description and 0% coverage. The description adds value by specifying the file extensions (.vsdx/.vsd) and emphasizing the file must be 'existing', but it still leaves ambiguity about path formats, relative vs. absolute paths, and file access requirements.

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 clearly states the verb 'Open' and the resource 'existing Visio file', plus the specific formats (.vsdx/.vsd). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like create_document and save_document by emphasizing 'existing' and 'file' rather than creation or saving.

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 should be used when there is an existing Visio file path that needs to be opened for viewing or editing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_document or open_stencil, nor does it provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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