open_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that opening creates a new top-level window (SecondaryFrame), that GUID rebinding occurs automatically, and that success is confirmed by result_marker readback. It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but it is unusually detailed for a test tool.

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, front-loaded paragraph that starts with the core action. It includes deep technical details about GUID rebinding and navigation replay, which may be more than some agents need, but the information is relevant and not repetitive.

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?

With no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description must supply almost all context. It covers purpose, behavior, composition with select_table_row, and the output shape (though an output schema exists), but the missing host/port parameter semantics leave a gap for a tool with four parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It explains result_marker (a card-specific UTF-16 string) and mentions capture in the context of replaying navigation, but it provides no information about host or port, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 ('Open') and resource ('record CARD') and the mechanism ('drilling into a catalog list row natively'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming select_table_row for specific rows and answer_dialog as a similar new-window mechanism.

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?

Explicitly says it opens the captured active row's card and instructs to precede with a row-select (compose with select_table_row) for a specific row. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and an alternative path.

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