open_ui

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: the editor edits the same in-memory document with live updates rather than a copy. It says nothing about blocking behavior, whether an URL/port is returned, editor lifetime, or auth needs, which are the remaining behavioral questions for an open-a-UI tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the parenthetical carries the key distinguishing trait. Only the unexplained 'project' param hints that something relevant was left unsaid.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what port does, what project selects, or what happens after the editor opens.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not — neither 'port' nor 'project' is mentioned. Worse, the 'project' parameter sits oddly against the claim of opening 'THIS document', with no explanation of how the two relate.

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 specific verb (Open) and resource (web editor) and pins the target as 'THIS document', which meaningfully separates it from the sibling project_open (open a project from disk). It never names that sibling, however, so the differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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?

'same in-memory document, live updates' implies when this is appropriate — you want a live view of the document already loaded — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives like project_open or close_ui. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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