open_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It usefully discloses the return value shape {doc_id, kind, path} and the semantics of the show parameter, including its default fallback. However, it does not mention side effects such as whether the opened document becomes the active document, what happens if the path does not exist, or whether multiple documents can be open simultaneously.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and the parameter/return details following directly. It avoids filler, repetition, and unnecessary detail.

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?

The description covers the return contract and both parameters, which is sufficient for a low-complexity tool with no output schema. It could be more complete by stating error behavior or whether opening changes the active document, but the essential calling inforation is present.

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 explain both parameters. It does: path is specified as an absolute filesystem path, and show is explained with concrete behavior (visible window vs off-screen, defaulting to the server's live setting). This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles and types.

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: 'Open an existing document from an absolute filesystem path.' This specifies a precise verb and resource and distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_document (new document) and list_documents (listing). It leaves no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 communicates a clear usage context: use this when you have an existing document and its absolute filesystem path. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'existing document' wording effectively rules out creation use cases. The show parameter guidance also clarifies when visible vs. off-screen editing is relevant.

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