Open Document

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful context (central models default to detached, cloud unsupported), but never explains the destructive nature, what state is affected, or why the operation is non-idempotent.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and path constraints. No wasted words, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and parameter detail.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with 6 undocumented parameters and zero schema coverage, this description is too thin. The output schema covers returns, but the destructive semantics and parameter behavior an agent needs before invoking it are missing.

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% across 6 parameters, and the description only obliquely touches the 'mode' parameter via 'default to detached.' Parameters like audit, activate, worksets, and process_id carry no meaning in either the schema or the description, leaving the agent to guess.

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 (Open) and resource (local/UNC/RSN model), and scopes it with supported path types. It does not explicitly contrast with close/save siblings, but the open action is self-evident and distinct.

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?

'Cloud paths are unsupported' gives a clear when-not, and 'Central models default to detached' implies usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer a particular mode (e.g., read_only_local vs detached) or how this relates to sibling open/close tools.

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