open_mermaid_file

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds the key side effect of setting current context. It does not disclose potential impacts on unsaved work or file modifications, but given the annotation coverage, the provided behavioral details are adequate and non-contradictory.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action (open, convert, set context). Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and the side effect of setting current context, while an output schema exists and all parameters are fully described. It does not explicitly mention the extensionProfile's role, but that is a minor omission given the schema's clarity.

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?

Both parameters (filename and extensionProfile) have full descriptions in the schema, including the enum for extensionProfile. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter context, which is acceptable because schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a clear verb-resource-action: open a Mermaid file, convert it to BPMN, and set it as current context. This distinguishes it from siblings like open_bpmn (which opens BPMN files) and new_from_mermaid (which creates new BPMN from Mermaid).

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 context where this tool should be used is implied: when an existing Mermaid file needs to be converted and made the active diagram. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer from tool names and sibling descriptions.

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