vscode_open_file

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description does not need to restate that. It adds modest context by framing the action as making the file visible to the user, but it never explains the surprising destructive flag, what happens if the path does not exist, or any side effects on editor state.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler; nothing repeats the schema or annotations. The phrasing 'at a line' is slightly loose, which keeps it short of ideal precision.

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 core contract adequately. It omits failure behavior (missing file, no VS Code instance) and any statement about editor state after the call, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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% – both 'file' (absolute path) and 'line' (1-based) are documented in the schema itself. The description only gestures at the line parameter ('at a line') and adds nothing about path format or line defaults beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline of 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?

Names a specific verb (Open) and resource (a file in VS Code) and adds the intent 'so the user can see it', which implicitly separates it from read_file, which returns content to the agent. It does not explicitly name or contrast any of the ~90 sibling tools, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 no statement of when to use this instead of read_file, vscode_open_files, or file_info, nor any prerequisites (e.g. VS Code must be running, workspace must be open). The only hint is the trailing purpose clause, which implies user-facing display but never says so as guidance.

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