open_document

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the document is opened and returns basic info, but does not disclose side effects such as replacing the current document, whether the file must already exist, or what happens to unsaved work.

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, front-loaded, and organized into clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

While the output schema covers return values, this is a state-changing entry-point tool with no annotations. The description omits prerequisite conditions and behavioral consequences, leaving an agent without enough context to predict what happens after calling open_document.

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% and the description only restates 'file_path' as 'Path to the HWP file.' This adds a small HWP-format cue, but no further semantics such as accepted path forms, file existence requirements, or error conditions beyond what the parameter name already implies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open'), a concrete resource ('an HWP document'), and an explicit purpose ('for reading and editing'). This makes the core action clear and distinguishes it from sibling operations like save_document or close_document, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

The phrase 'for reading and editing' implies this tool is the entry point before read/edit operations, and the distinction from list_open_documents and close_document is inferable. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, alternative comparison, or mention of when not to use it.

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