hop_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the external side effect (a new Cursor window is launched), which is more than the name implies. However, it says nothing about failure behavior when the target worktree does not exist, whether this requires the worktree to have been created first, or which parameter takes precedence when several are supplied.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the mechanism and the usage trigger. Sentence two ("Launches a new Cursor window at the worktree path") partially restates sentence one, a minor redundancy.

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 tool takes five different optional worktree identifiers with zero required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description never explains how those parameters combine or which one to prefer, leaving an agent unable to reliably construct a valid call without reading the schema closely.

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 baseline is 3. The description only adds "at the worktree path," which merely echoes the worktreePath parameter, and it gives no guidance on how slug+ticket, branch, repoPath, and worktreePath relate or resolve to one worktree.

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?

States a specific verb (open) and resource (a hop / git worktree) and clarifies that the action is to launch a Cursor IDE window at the worktree path. An agent can distinguish it from hop_list, hop_start, and hop_end. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling git_worktree_open, which the name implies may do something similar.

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?

"Use this when user wants to edit files in Cursor for a specific ticket/worktree" gives a clear triggering context tied to a specific intent. It stops short of naming alternatives (hop_start, git_worktree_open) or stating when not to use it, so it is context without exclusions.

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