dm_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns a list of image ids and loads acquisition metadata/calibration for dm3/dm4 files, but it omits other relevant behavior: whether DigitalMicrograph must be running, what happens on invalid paths, and whether opening replaces or adds to existing documents.

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 compact sentences with the main action and return value front-loaded. No sentence is redundant; the metadata-loading note adds useful context without bloat.

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 low-complexity file-opening tool without annotations or an output schema, the description covers the action, supported formats, return value, and metadata side effect. It is nearly complete but stops short of stating runtime prerequisites or error behavior.

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 the schema already explains both parameters fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, and the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('local data file') and lists supported formats plus the return value, so the core action is clear. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling dm_4dstem_open, which is also a file-opening tool and may overlap with 'other DM-supported formats'.

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 description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dm_4dstem_open, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the purpose statement.

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