swebsy_open_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses idempotency, the paired-tab environment, the metadata return, and the readiness precondition via swebsy_status. Minor gaps like explicit failure modes remain, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences deliver purpose, return value, idempotency, and a required follow-up with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, so an agent grasps the intent immediately.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this definition is complete: it states what to pass, what happens, what is returned, and what must be checked before editing. The agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool and continue the workflow.

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 100% and the only parameter, siteId, is already documented as the authoritative ID from swebsy_list_sites. The description adds little beyond framing the action as opening 'by ID', so the schema-heavy baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a precise operation ('Open a saved site by ID in the paired tab') and a distinct outcome ('return its metadata'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like swebsy_create_site, swebsy_select_page, or swebsy_status.

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 implies when to use the tool: before editing, and it instructs the agent to poll swebsy_status afterward. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with sibling alternatives or states when not to use it.

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