open_file_at_path

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false). The description adds platform coverage and permission requirement, but does not clarify side effects such as launching a GUI application or whether the call blocks. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences with the primary action front-loaded. The second sentence provides a critical permission note. No redundant wording or 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?

For a simple open-file operation, the description covers the action, platform scope, and permission requirement. It does not describe return values or error behavior (no output schema), but the low complexity makes this less critical. Still, a note on return type could improve completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'with_app' via 'or in a specific desktop application', but 'path' remains self-explanatory. No format, examples, or constraints are provided for either parameter, so it only partially compensates.

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 ('a file'), and specifies the action context: opening in the default application or a specific desktop application across OSes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_file (which reads content) and edit_file (which modifies).

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 implies usage (when you want to open a file externally) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like read_file or edit_file. It does mention a prerequisite ('Requires allow_file_read'), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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