sw_open

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail beyond that: the document becomes the active one, which affects subsequent calls. However, it says nothing about failure modes (file missing, already open, unsaved changes) or whether opening can modify the file on disk.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; verb, resource, and effect in order. Brevity here is close to under-specification but the sentence itself is well-formed.

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 two-parameter open operation with no output schema, the core action is covered. Missing pieces are the connection prerequisite, the semantics of read_only, and what the call returns or does when the document is already open, which for a state-changing tool is a real gap.

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 coverage is only 50%: the path parameter is documented, but read_only has no description anywhere. The description never compensates, not even mentioning that a document can be opened read-only, leaving the agent to guess at a parameter that materially changes behavior.

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), a specific resource (SolidWorks document), and the post-condition (make it active). The word "existing" implicitly separates it from sw_new_document, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It never states that a session must already exist (sw_connect) or that a different tool handles creating new documents, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.

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