open_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only says 'open' and 'return a stable document_id'. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., becoming the active document, loading into memory), failure modes (e.g., missing path), or permission requirements. The only behavioral hint is 'stable', which is minimal.

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. It efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, it is so terse that it omits essential context, though conciseness itself is not the issue.

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?

This is a foundational tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the role of the returned document_id, the meaning of the parameters, or the typical flow (e.g., use the ID with other tools). It is far from complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the bare parameter names. It does not mention 'path', 'visible', or 'read_only' at all. An agent cannot infer what these parameters mean or how they affect the open operation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('KOMPAS document') and states an outcome ('return a stable document_id'). It is clear enough to be distinguished from siblings like list_documents or close_document, 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus other document-related tools such as list_documents, get_document_tree, or preflight_document_context. It does not mention that opening is a prerequisite for downstream operations or any exclusions.

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