open_explorer

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false; the description adds the real side effects — a file is written to disk at a specific path and a browser is launched — which is exactly the context annotations can't convey. It doesn't say whether an existing explorer.html is overwritten or what happens if the browser launch fails, which keeps it below a 5.

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 tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. It is short enough that the omission of usage guidance reads as under-specification rather than verbosity.

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 output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, so the remaining burden is small — but with no explanation of hops or of when to prefer this over read-only graph siblings, the description is only just adequate for a tool with a filesystem side effect.

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 67%, and the one undescribed parameter is the semantically important one: hops (1-4) is never explained in either place, so an agent can't tell it controls graph expansion depth. The mention of opening in a browser loosely maps to open_browser, but that parameter already documents itself.

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 concrete verb+resource: writes an interactive graph explorer HTML file to TORUS_HOME/explorer.html and opens it in the browser. That is unmistakably different from graph-reading siblings like neighbors or find_paths, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 indication of when to reach for this versus neighbors, find_paths, brief, or timeline, and no prerequisites or preconditions. The agent must infer the use case (visual exploration of the graph) entirely on its own.

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