document_open

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect — the opened document becomes the active document — which is real behavioral context an agent needs. It says nothing about what happens to any already-open document, whether the file is locked or read-only, or what errors occur on a bad path, so it is only partially transparent 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; each clause (supported formats, workspace source, active-document effect) carries distinct information. Nothing is redundant or re-stated from the schema.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is opened, from where, and the resulting state change. It omits the return value entirely (no output schema exists to document it) and does not address interaction with already-open documents, leaving an agent unable to predict the response shape.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter `path` has no schema-level description, so the description must compensate. It does add one useful constraint — the path is relative to "the workspace" rather than an arbitrary filesystem location — but gives no format, relative-vs-absolute rules, or extension handling.

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 gives a specific verb ("Open") plus the resource (a file from the workspace) and enumerates supported formats (.kra/.ora/.psd or image), which tells an agent exactly what kinds of files are accepted. It also states the post-condition ("make it active"). It stops short of distinguishing itself by name from close siblings such as document_new, document_activate, or import_image, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite a dense sibling set where confusion is likely (document_new for creation, document_activate for switching, import_image for bringing in raster content). The format list only weakly implies usage. The agent must infer selection criteria on its own.

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