open_file

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits the schema cannot: which file formats are accepted and that the document is loaded into the currently active GUI tab (an implicit dependency on a running GUI and a side effect on that tab). It does not say what happens to unsaved content in the active tab, whether ensure_gui is a prerequisite, or how failures are reported.

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 that front-loads the action, then the accepted formats, then the destination. Nothing is padded and nothing essential is buried.

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 output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies what matters: accepted formats and where the file lands. The remaining gap is the interaction with a possibly dirty active tab and GUI readiness, which matters for a GUI-mutating tool with no annotations.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already defines filePath and its meaning. The format enumeration in the description constrains what values are valid beyond type=string, which is a small addition, but no path syntax, absolute-vs-relative convention, or size limits are added.

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 specific verb (buka/open) and resource (berkas desain) and enumerates the accepted formats (.figcraft, .json, .fig, .sketch, .svg, images), which an agent can match against an incoming filename. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'create_and_open' / 'figcraft_create_and_open', which plausibly also ends in an opened file, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over 'create_and_open' or when to prefer 'inspect_document'. The destination ('tab aktif di GUI FigCraft') is stated, which implies the tool operates on an existing GUI session, but no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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