open_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioural trait that the current scene is replaced (i.e. unsaved work is lost). It says nothing about error behaviour for missing/invalid files, permissions, or whether the operation is undoable, so coverage is partial.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the alias relationship and the primary effect. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what it loads, from where, and that it is destructive to the current scene. It could add a note about failure modes or the equivalent load_project, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

One parameter ('path') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so partially by clarifying the file is a project JSON file on disk, which implies the expected path format, but it does not state whether an absolute path, relative path, or extension is required.

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 and resource ('load a project JSON file from disk') and identifies itself as an alias of load_project, which lets an agent recognise it as duplicative rather than distinct. It does not, however, differentiate itself from new_project or save_project beyond the implied file-based load.

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 phrase 'replace the current scene' implies the context in which this tool applies (loading an existing project rather than creating one), but there is no explicit when-to-use instruction and no mention of the load_project sibling or new_project as the alternative for a blank document.

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