open_in_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action 'open' without disclosing behavioral details such as whether it replaces existing content, requires an open project, or handles errors. Minimal transparency.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and concise, delivering the core information efficiently.

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 action with a well-defined schema, the description is fairly complete. However, it could benefit from mentioning that the Source Monitor must be available or that it may replace the current source clip. Still, it adequately covers the primary context.

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 100% and the parameter item_id is well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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', the resource 'project item', the destination 'Source Monitor', and the purpose 'for preview and trimming'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like open_project or close_source_monitor.

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 a user wants to preview/trim a project item in the Source Monitor but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.

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