emacs_file_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Open a file' does not disclose what opening means behaviorally: whether it creates a buffer, switches the current buffer, requires an existing file, or returns any confirmation. This is a minimal statement of intent, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 filler, but it is also under-specified and mostly echoes the tool name. It is concise in length but not particularly informative, so it does not reach the level of a genuinely helpful concise description.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-line description, the agent lacks important context: what effect opening has on Emacs state, whether the file must exist, and what the tool returns. The schema covers parameters, but the operational context is incomplete.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about path, line, or column beyond what the schema provides. It neither helps nor harms parameter understanding.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Open a file in Emacs.' This is distinct from obvious siblings like save, info, or buffer operations, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related file/buffer tools such as emacs_buffer_switch or emacs_buffer_read.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or compare with emacs_buffer_read, emacs_file_info, or any other sibling. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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