svg_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Opens' is ambiguous - it doesn't specify whether this loads content into memory, displays it in an interface, makes it editable, or what permissions are required. For a file operation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unexplained.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and doesn't waste space on redundant 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 file operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'opening' means operationally, what happens after opening, potential errors (like missing files), or the tool's role in the broader SVG editing workflow alongside siblings like 'svg_create' and 'svg_save'.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'filePath' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameter usage beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('opens') and target resource ('existing SVG file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'svg_create' or 'svg_save', which would require more specific context about what 'opening' entails in this system.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like file existence), distinguish from 'svg_create' for new files, or indicate when to use 'svg_open' versus 'svg_load' or other file operations in the sibling list.

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