gh_open_file

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

readOnlyHint=false already signals a state-changing operation, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. Critically, it does not disclose what happens to the currently open Grasshopper definition when a file is opened (e.g., replacement, risk of losing unsaved work). No contradiction exists, but the description contributes none of the behavioral disclosure an opening-file action warrants.

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?

A single, complete sentence with no filler and the verb front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though the brevity borders on under-specification.

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 tool with a near-identical sibling (rhino_open_file) and a mutation annotation, the description omits the key context an agent needs: which file types it targets versus Rhino documents, and what happens to the current definition on open. The schema documenting 'path' and the existence of an output schema do not compensate for these gaps.

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 tool description mentions no parameter at all, and the top-level 'args' schema node lacks a description (0% coverage per context signals). Only the nested 'path' property is documented ('Absolute path to a .gh / .ghx file.'), so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap at the parameter level.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and a domain-specific resource ('Grasshopper definition'), which maps cleanly to .gh/.ghx files per the schema. The term 'Grasshopper definition' implicitly distinguishes this from the near-identical sibling rhino_open_file (which opens Rhino documents). However, it relies on domain knowledge rather than naming the alternative, so it stops 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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus rhino_open_file or other gh_* siblings. The description neither states prerequisites (e.g., file existence, an active Grasshopper session) nor exclusions. An agent must infer the use case from the tool name alone.

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