open_settings

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the tool cannot be closed and may reuse an existing settings page. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints, with no contradiction.

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 sentence front-loads the built-in/cannot-close caveat before stating the action and return value. Every phrase adds relevant information with no 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 tool is simple, parameterless, and has no output schema. The description explains the action, the return value (access address), and key behavioral constraints. It could be more specific about the address format, but it is adequate for this low-complexity tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly implies no configurable inputs are needed.

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 uses specific verbs ('启动或复用' = launch or reuse) and a clear resource ('本机设置页' = local settings page), and states it returns an access address. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_settings_status, which is a status check.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_settings_status. The note that it is built-in and cannot be closed is a constraint, not usage direction. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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