open_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation (opening for editing) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires file permissions, if it creates non-existent files, or potential side effects. It adds basic context but lacks detail on mutation behavior.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. Every sentence earns its place by stating the purpose and usage context without waste.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (file operation with potential mutation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or return values, leaving clear 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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'path' parameter fully. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 a file') and resource ('in Neovim'), specifying it works for both newly created and existing files. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_buffer' or 'reload_buffer', which prevents a perfect score.

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 clear context on when to use this tool ('to open newly created files or existing files for editing'), but it doesn't specify when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools like 'reload_buffer' for already open files.

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