open_example

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

The annotations already disclose that this is not read-only, is open-world, and is not idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the download is checked against a published SHA-256, and editing the case marks the preloaded result stale until rerun. It does not describe failure handling when the checksum fails, but the added integrity and staleness context is valuable.

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 front-loaded with the core action and uses only three short sentences. Each sentence adds useful information: the preloaded result, the checksum check, and the stale-result behavior after editing.

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 output schema, the description covers the main operational context: where the name comes from, what is created, the integrity check, and stale-result behavior. The main gap is the undocumented language parameter, though its default and enum values are visible in the schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for both parameters. It clarifies that the required name parameter comes from list_examples, but it does not mention the optional language parameter or explain how ja/en/zh affect the opened example.

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 and resource: opening a solved example as a new case with its result preloaded. It also names the source of the identifier (list_examples), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_case and list_examples.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite by saying the name comes from list_examples, and explains that editing the opened case marks the result stale and requires a rerun. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_case, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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