open_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool does NOT wait for Cadwork, that a manual plugin click is required, and that it rejects duplicate filenames to preserve bridge uniqueness. This is meaningful non-obvious behavior beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action appears in the first sentence, followed by essential behavioral steps and a rejection condition. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or 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 explains what the tool does, what it does not do, the required follow-up step (wait_for_bridge), and a key failure condition. Given the single parameter and lack of output schema, this is largely complete, though it could optionally clarify error handling when the file is not found or Cadwork cannot start.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. It adds that ziel_datei must be an existing .3d file and notes a same-name constraint, which clarifies the parameter's meaning. However, it does not specify path format, required extension details, or example values, so compensation is partial.

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 specific verb and resource: "Oeffnet eine vorhandene .3d-Datei" via Windows file association, and identifies itself as "Schritt 2 des Datei-Bootstraps." It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like wait_for_bridge by describing its role in the bootstrap sequence.

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 gives explicit sequencing: after opening, the plugin "Open MCP CAD" must be clicked, then wait_for_bridge(ziel_datei) is called. It also states a rejection condition when a connected instance already has a file of the same name open. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives, but the bootstrap context makes the usage clear.

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