open_bpmn

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

Annotations already disclose idempotency (idempotentHint: true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint: false). The description adds the key behavioural trait of switching the current context, which is not captured by annotations. It does not discuss failure modes, but given the annotations and the simple nature of the tool, this is sufficient.

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 states the action and effect with zero filler. Every word adds value, and the structure is optimally compact for a tool with one parameter.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and annotations that cover safety, this description is complete. It explains what the tool does (opens and sets context), and nothing else is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly. The existence of the output schema relieves the description from explaining return values.

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 input schema fully describes the single parameter ('filename': 'Filename of the BPMN diagram to open') with 100% coverage. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter (e.g., path patterns, extensions, or constraints), so it merely echoes the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic load.

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'), a clear resource ('existing BPMN file'), and an explicit effect ('set it as current context'). This distinguishes it from siblings like new_bpmn (create), open_mermaid_file (different format), and save (persist), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies usage: open an existing BPMN diagram to make it the working context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when not to use it, but the resource type ('existing BPMN') implicitly rules out new files or other formats. A named alternative would be stronger, but the core context is clear.

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