cc_open_claude_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states that the tool defaults to starting Claude in the visible Terminal, which is a key behavioral trait. But it does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling, session management, or whether it closes existing sessions. The description is insufficient for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the usage trigger. However, it is written in Chinese while the tool name is English, which might cause confusion. For a tool with four parameters, it is overly brief, but conciseness itself is not penalized heavily.

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 the tool has four optional parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It only covers the basic action and trigger, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use parameters or interpret results.

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 description adds no meaning to the four parameters (cli_args, terminal, session_id, project_path). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not mention any parameter. An agent has no context to set these parameters correctly.

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 tool opens Claude Code when the user says specific phrases like '打开 Claude Code/打开 cc'. It identifies the verb 'open' and the resource 'Claude Code'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'app_open' or 'desktop_open_cc_project', leaving some ambiguity.

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 a trigger condition ('当用户说...时调用'), indicating when to use the tool. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., cc_start_session), limiting its usefulness.

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