open_stencil

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the accepted input forms and the intended effect (masters become droppable), but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., whether a document must be open), or failure behavior. This is moderate transparency 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter details appear in a clearly separated second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main calling concerns: what input to provide and what happens after the call. It is slightly incomplete because prerequisites (e.g., needing an open document) and possible error conditions are not addressed, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining all three acceptable formats for name_or_path: built-in names with examples, absolute path, and fuzzy match against My Shapes folder. This gives the agent concrete guidance beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Open') and a specific resource ('stencil (shape library)'), and explains the resulting capability ('so its masters can be dropped'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_masters, drop_shape, and create_document.

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 use case (opening a stencil to use its masters) and gives useful input context (built-in names vs My Shapes folder). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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