sw_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the document is left active, which is a useful post-condition. But it does not mention error behavior for missing files, whether it requires an existing SolidWorks connection, or any side effects. For an open operation that's insufficiently rich, but the 'active' detail adds value.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It conveys the action, accepted formats, and the resulting active state.

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 open tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it says what's opened and the effect. Missing prerequisites like 'requires sw_connect first' or error conditions keep it from being fully complete.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the single 'path' parameter including that it's an absolute Windows path. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb ('Abre') and resource ('documento existente') with supported extensions (.SLDPRT/.SLDASM), and notes it becomes active. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling sw_new_part (which creates new) beyond the word 'existente'. Adequate but sibling differentiation is thin.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to open an existing document. No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., vs sw_new_part or sw_connect) and no exclusions. Minimum viable.

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