fscp_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the file is opened and a handle is returned. It does not mention whether the file is locked, what happens if the path is invalid, whether the operation has side effects, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for an open operation that likely leads to file modifications.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. The key information (file type and purpose) is front-loaded. However, it could be longer to include critical usage guidance, so it loses a point for being overly terse.

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 that this tool is the entry point to a family of fscp_* operations and there is an output schema (though not shown), the description lacks essential context. It omits error handling (e.g., what if the file does not exist), the nature of the returned handle, prerequisites, and the fact that to create a new file one should use fscp_create. This makes it incomplete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it correctly.

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 single parameter 'path' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the path should point to a .fscp file, which adds minimal meaning. However, it does not specify whether the path should be absolute/relative, accepted file extensions, or error conditions. The compensation is insufficient for a parameter with zero schema documentation.

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 clearly states the verb (open), the resource (a .fscp file), and the outcome (get a handle for other calls). It distinguishes from siblings like fscp_create and fscp_close by indicating it's the entry-point open operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with fscp_create, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'получить handle для остальных вызовов' implies this tool should be used first in a sequence of fscp_* operations, giving some usage context. But it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if the file doesn't exist, use fscp_create instead) or name any alternative tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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