editor_open_dock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the action but does not detail behaviors such as whether the dock toggles, focuses, or errors on invalid input. For such a simple operation, the description is adequate but lacks explicit behavioral nuance.

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 sentence that lists all valid options with zero filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and no output, the description plus schema fully cover what the agent needs to know. The list of dock names is included, and the schema provides the parameter type. No additional context is necessary.

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?

The schema already provides a description for the 'dock' parameter ('Dock name: filesystem, inspector, scene, output'), and the tool description repeats the same list without adding extra meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Open') and the resource ('a dock'), and lists the specific dock types (filesystem, inspector, scene, output). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with editing, reading, or creating resources, as it is the only tool explicitly for opening docks.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does and which docks are available, making its intended use obvious. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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