content_open

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false) already signal that writes occur; the description adds context by revealing that snapshots and completion statistics are saved and read, which is consistent and non-contradictory. But it does not disclose side effects in detail such as whether existing snapshots are overwritten, when persistence is triggered, or what state changes occur.

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 two short sentences with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the secondary readiness concept is separated cleanly, making the text efficient even though its content is under-specified.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and annotations are present, the description remains incomplete for a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema parameter coverage. It omits any explanation of the six parameters, gives no usage context, and provides no guidance relative to its many siblings, leaving an agent unable to construct a correct call confidently.

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% while the tool has 6 parameters (ref, scope, budget, context, version, resources), so the description carries the full burden of explaining them and fails to do so. The 'readiness' sentence offers a domain hint about Skill completeness, which may relate to an output field, but it provides no meaning for any individual parameter.

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 states a domain and action ('固定配置和正文, 保存读取快照与完成统计' – fixed config and body, persisting/reading snapshots and completion stats), which is more than a tautology. However, it never explains what the 'open' operation itself does and provides no differentiation from siblings like content_read, content_continue, or content_snapshot, leaving the core purpose vague.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The siblings include content_read, content_continue, content_snapshot, and content_apply, yet the description names none of them and gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent route to this tool correctly.

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