ipa_open

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral facts: the action targets the user's actual browser (a client-side side effect) and only site URLs are accepted (a validation constraint). It says nothing about what happens on a rejected URL, whether a new tab/window is opened, or what the call returns.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the input restriction immediately after. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence could be tightened to name the exact accepted URL form.

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, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool this is close to adequate: the effect and the input constraint are both stated. It stops short of telling an agent how to construct a valid URL for a booking or file, or what to expect when the URL is refused.

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 0% — the single 'url' property is an untyped string with no description. The sentence 'Only URLs of the site are accepted' is the only constraint on that parameter, and it leaves open whether relative paths, absolute URLs, or specific booking/file URL formats are valid.

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 concrete verb ('Open') plus the three resource types it accepts (site page, booking list, library file) and the destination ('the user's browser'). An agent can picture the effect without opening the schema, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ipa_page or ipa_files.

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 phrase 'in the user's browser' implies this is for handing a resource to the human to view rather than fetching data programmatically, which is useful implicit routing. But no sibling is named as an alternative and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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