console_open

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), the description discloses concrete side effects: it binds a raw-protocol SerialDriver, starts a background reader, enforces one session per place via a registry, and runs the ownership check before any registry call. This is meaningful behavioral detail that annotations alone do not provide.

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 concise and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated first, followed by behavioral details and the ownership-check ordering. The internal reference 'console.py, DESIGN §11.10' is mildly noisy for an agent but does not significantly detract from clarity.

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 single parameter, an output schema, and sibling tools for acquisition and console I/O, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, preconditions (acquired place), exclusivity (one session per place), and failure mode (second open rejected). An agent has enough context to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 only provides a required 'place' string with no description coverage. The tool description compensates by clarifying that the place must be an acquired place and that ownership is checked. It does not specify the exact identifier format, but the combination of the schema and description gives enough semantic meaning for the parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Open an interactive console session on an acquired place.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling console tools (console_read, console_send, console_close) by being the session-establishing operation, and the one-session-per-place rule further defines its scope.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: on an acquired place, before console I/O, and only if no session is already open. It also warns that a second open is rejected. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use console_read after this,' but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the correct workflow.

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