live_open

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, which is minimal. The description usefully discloses the two distinct outcomes — attaching to an existing window versus launching/opening one — which is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotation. It stops short of describing side effects of launching an external application, failure modes when the app is absent, or whether the attached session persists.

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 filler or redundancy; the attach-or-open duality is stated first. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, so it loses a point only for leaving gaps the reader must fill.

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?

Four parameters, no nested objects, and full schema coverage mean the schema carries the parameter burden, and there is no output schema to describe. However, for a stateful tool that manipulates an external application, the description omits prerequisites, launch-versus-attach preconditions, and failure behavior, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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 100% and the schema explains `app`, `doc`, `front`, and `engine` thoroughly, including that `front` reflects whether the window actually came forward. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific dual behavior: attach to an already-running app window, or open the document in a live app. That is a real verb+resource with scope (a 'live app' session). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `open`, so an agent cannot resolve which of the two to pick from the text alone.

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?

There is an implicit scenario ('the app window holding the document'), but no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that a live app session must exist or be launched), and no named alternative such as `open`. The agent must infer routing from the tool name against ~60 siblings.

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