open_book

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any side effects, such as whether the book becomes the active document, whether it locks the file, or whether a session is required. This is insufficient for safe autonomous use.

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 a single, concise sentence with the verb first. It is efficient, though slightly oversimplified; a bit more context (e.g., 'Opens a book file and loads it into the session') would not harm conciseness.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks context about its role among siblings (e.g., it is a prerequisite for many book operations). The absence of output schema and annotations makes it minimally complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter's schema description ('Path to the book file'), so it does not improve semantics.

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 'Open an existing InDesign book' clearly states the action (open) and the resource (InDesign book). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_book (creation) and list_books (listing), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like open_document or create_book. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., book must exist) or context (e.g., need to open a book before using book-specific tools).

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