eda_dmt_editor_control_open_library_document

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions return value (tab ID or undefined for failure) but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or whether it changes the active tab or requires permissions. For an opening action, this is minimal.

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 short and front-loaded with the signature, which is useful. It avoids verbosity and includes essential return information, though it could be more organized by separating signature from 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?

For a document-opening tool, it gives signature, return value, and failure condition. But it lacks context on when to use it, whether splitScreenId is optional and its purpose, and any required setup. Given no annotations, it is incomplete but not severely lacking.

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 description includes the full signature with parameter names and types (libraryUuid, libraryType with enum, uuid, splitScreenId), providing more detail than the generic args array schema. However, it does not explain the meaning of each parameter beyond its name (e.g., what libraryUuid and uuid refer to).

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 tool opens library symbol and footprint documents, with the full function signature and return type. It distinguishes from siblings like open_document by specifying 'library' documents, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar open tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_dmt_editor_control_open_document or library-specific open tools. It lacks conditions for choosing this over other open or activate tools.

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