nx_open_part

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Open a part,' with no explanation of side effects on the current session, whether the part becomes the active part, what happens to previously opened unsaved parts, or what errors or state changes may occur.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and easy to parse, though the brevity contributes to the under-specification of behavior and parameters.

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 tool with no annotations, one undocumented parameter, and sibling tools that perform similar lifecycle operations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected path format, what 'open' changes in the workspace state, or when to choose this operation over related tools. The presence of an output schema does not make up for these gaps.

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 only parameter 'path' has no schema-level explanation. The description adds that the part comes from the 'configured workspace,' but it does not clarify whether the path is absolute, relative to the workspace, includes a file extension, or what format is expected. This is minimal compensation for an undocumented parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Open a part' from the 'configured workspace.' It clearly communicates the core operation and is distinguishable from siblings like nx_create_part, nx_save_part, and nx_close_part by the word 'open,' though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 nx_create_part, nx_close_part, or other siblings. It implies loading an existing part by saying 'from the configured workspace,' but it does not say when this is appropriate or when another tool should be used instead.

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