eda_dmt_editor_control_open_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the success/failure semantics (returns a tab ID, or undefined on failure), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects on the current window/tab, whether the document must already be loaded, or what happens if the document is already open.

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 compact and front-loads the exact API signature followed by the Chinese purpose and return explanation. It contains no filler, though it is brief enough that some of the missing contextual detail could have been added without bloating it.

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-document operation, the description covers the essential return behavior and failure signal, and the schema covers windowId. It remains incomplete because it does not explain how to obtain a valid documentUuid, how splitScreenId affects behavior, or when to prefer the sibling open_library_document tool.

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 only exposes a generic args array and windowId, so the description's signature is essential: it documents documentUuid as a string and splitScreenId as an optional string. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's generic JSON-array placeholder.

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 the operation clearly: '打开文档' (open document) and provides the exact method signature openDocument(documentUuid, splitScreenId). It identifies a specific verb, resource, and return value (tab ID), but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling eda_dmt_editor_control_open_library_document.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_library_document, activate_document, or close_document. The description implies its use from the name but provides no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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