hai_open_mission

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that only one active mission is allowed globally, which is useful, but it does not describe side effects, whether an existing mission is replaced or rejected, required prior states, or any mutation/safety implications of opening a mission.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler. The first sentence gives the core purpose and the second adds a critical constraint. It is concise without being wordy, though the jargon 'bounded mission' and 'versioned canonical contract' could be clarified without much added length.

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?

Given the number of parameters, the existence of an output schema, and many sibling lifecycle tools, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It does not cover parameter semantics, prerequisite states, conflict handling with the global mission constraint, or how this tool relates to close/park/recontract operations.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the six parameters. Terms like 'objective,' 'artifact,' and 'done_criteria' are present only as names in the schema; the description does not clarify what 'artifact' means, how constraints or non_goals are used, or how the parameters relate to the 'versioned canonical contract.'

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 clearly states the action ('Open'), the resource ('a bounded mission with a versioned canonical contract'), and a key constraint ('One active mission globally'). This distinguishes it from many sibling tools at a high level, though it could more explicitly contrast with tools like hai_mission_start or hai_recontract.

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 no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what should happen if a mission is already active. The global-uniqueness statement implies a usage condition but does not explain how to proceed in that case.

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