open_files

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

The description states 'List files, sockets, and pipes' indicating a read-only operation, but the annotations set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, contradicting the described behavior. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about potential side effects. No additional behavioral details (e.g., privilege requirements, performance impact) are provided.

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 very concise with two sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every word adds value, and the structure efficiently communicates what the tool does, including a practical note about lsof.

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?

Given no output schema, the description partially explains return values ('shows exactly what a process is reading, writing, or listening on'), but lacks structured details. The contradiction with annotations undermines completeness regarding behavior. For a tool with one optional parameter and no heavy nesting, this is adequate but leaves gaps about the actual response format.

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 coverage is 100% with the filter parameter already described as 'Process name or PID to filter (optional — leave empty for all).' The description merely repeats this ('Filter by process name or PID') without adding extra meaning or examples, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: listing files, sockets, and pipes opened by processes. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files, sockets, pipes currently open by processes'), and the scope (filter by process name or PID) distinguishes it from sibling tools like proc_list, net_connections, etc.

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 implies usage for inspecting open file descriptors via 'Uses lsof — shows exactly what a process is reading, writing, or listening on.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a network connection is needed vs. file handles). No when-not or exclusions are mentioned.

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