type_archive.open

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'open and optionally attach' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether the archive is loaded into memory, if it modifies the session, or if it is a read-only operation). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices substance. While not verbose, it fails to earn its place by providing essential context. A slightly longer description would improve utility without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the rich set of sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It omits return values, behavioral details, and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage for its three parameters (path, attach, session_id), and the description itself adds no information about their meaning or expected formats. The agent must guess, which is a critical gap.

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 action ('open') and the resource ('type archive'), with the optional 'attach' distinguishing it from sibling tools like type_archive.list, type_archive.get, and type_archive.pull. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as type_archive.get, type_archive.pull, or type_archive.create. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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