open_in_app

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false / openWorldHint=false, so the description's disclosure that it never steals focus, never plays anything, and merely marks a dot is meaningful added context. It stops short of explaining reversibility or what the user sees on click.

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 then the two qualifying constraints. The final fragment ('Once per finished result...') is terse but earns its place as a usage rule.

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?

With one fully documented parameter, existing annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what it does, how it behaves, and how often to call it. Minor gaps (no return/confirmation detail) are not required given the absence of an output schema.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds that the single path may point at a project, session, or file (e.g. a new edit), which slightly broadens and disambiguates the schema's own examples.

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 action (offer a project/session/file in the Takes app) on a specific resource, and the 'gets a dot and opens only on a click' clause makes the effect unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from list/get/create-style siblings because it is about surfacing an item in the app UI rather than manipulating data.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('once per finished result') and when not to ('not for drafts or in-between steps'), which is real dispatch guidance. It does not name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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