open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key side effect: if the file does not exist it is CREATED, and the response contains 'created: true'. It also describes inspect output and the frontmatter ignored-keys policy. It does not mention connection lifecycle or permissions, but the main side effects are covered.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses clear code blocks for the two invocation shapes, and every sentence adds value: creation side effect, inspect result, and frontmatter policy. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the two modes, the create-if-missing behavior, and the inspect return summary. It is slightly incomplete about what opening an existing database returns and how the 'current' database changes, but the output schema covers return details.

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 names a required 'document' string with no description (0% coverage). The description provides examples showing the document structure ('# Database' with 'path: ...' and no fields for inspect), but it never explicitly states that the 'document' parameter is the string containing these fields, leaving the mapping implicit.

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 a SQLite database or inspect the current one.' It clearly distinguishes two modes (open with a path vs. inspect with no fields) and names the resource, making it easy to tell apart from the sibling read/write/delete tools.

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 for when to use each mode: open with a path, or inspect with no fields. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools read/write/delete or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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