Open project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add context by clarifying the file is loaded 'into memory for editing,' implying no direct disk write. But it does not mention failure behavior, whether an already-open project is replaced, or other editor-state side effects.

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 with no filler words. Every element contributes: the action, the resource type, the source, and the purpose.

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 single-parameter tool with low complexity, the description provides the essential invocation details: the local file path, the expected file format, and the operation's in-memory editing purpose. Return behavior and interaction with an existing open project are not specified, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single `path` parameter, so the structural schema already documents the parameter. The description adds only the '.sb3' file-type context, which is already reflected in the schema's parameter description.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Load') with a clear resource ('.sb3 file from disk') and purpose ('into memory for editing'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_scratch_project, reload, and vm_load by emphasizing local disk vs. other load contexts.

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 intended use is implied rather than stated outright: loading a local .sb3 file for editing. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as open_scratch_project, reload, or vm_load.

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