resinsight_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals two non-obvious traits: the WSLg dependency and the fact that it returns immediately rather than blocking. It could additionally mention that the GUI remains open after the call returns or error behavior if WSLg is unavailable, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the environment prerequisite and the key return behavior. Every clause adds value.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, the description conveys the essential launch behavior, prerequisite, and non-blocking nature. However, it omits any guidance on case_path semantics and does not explicitly distinguish when to choose this tool over resinsight_snapshot or other ResInsight-related tools. This leaves the description usable but incomplete.

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 must compensate, but it says nothing about case_path. It does not explain whether case_path is a file path, a project path, whether it is optional for opening an empty GUI, or what path format is expected. The parameter name alone gives only a weak hint.

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: 'Open ResInsight as an interactive GUI'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like resinsight_snapshot or resinsight_well_log, which imply non-interactive or specialized output modes. The phrase 'interactive GUI' makes the tool's role 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?

The description gives clear context: this opens the interactive GUI, depends on WSLg, and returns immediately, implying it is for launching rather than computing or batch processing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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