company_kb_open_doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-oriented retrieval action and a follow-up context, but it does not disclose details like how chunk references are resolved, whether version/commit matters, truncation behavior, or side-effect safety. Still, 'open' and 'after search' imply a non-destructive lookup.

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, and the primary operation is stated first. The usage guidance is placed immediately after, making the most important information front-loaded.

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 7 optional parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully support invocation. It explains the high-level purpose and when to use it, but leaves parameter semantics, expected inputs from search results, and behavioral nuances unexplained. The presence of an output schema helps but does not close these gaps.

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 the 7 undocumented parameters. It only hints at concepts like 'chunk by reference' and 'source lines', which loosely map to chunkId and lineStart/lineEnd, but it fails to explain path, commit, project, maxChars, or how to construct a valid call from search results.

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 identifies the operation: opening an exact document excerpt or indexed chunk by reference. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating it is meant as a follow-up to search, rather than a search or repository-management action.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: after search, when surrounding context or precise source lines are needed. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of fully routing behavior across multiple siblings.

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