scratchjr_open_project

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

The description discloses one meaningful behavioral side effect beyond the annotations: it saves the current project before opening another. However, it does not explain what happens on failure, whether unsaved changes are silently overwritten, or why 'real editor' matters. Since readOnlyHint is false, the safety profile is already known from annotations, and the description adds only modest context.

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 key action (saving the current project) and states the main operation without filler. Every phrase carries useful information.

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 a documented schema this is minimally adequate, but it omits any mention of return value/behavior, connection prerequisites (despite scratchjr_connect existing), or what distinguishes opening in the real editor from other project operations.

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 documents projectId as 'Project ID from list_projects or create_project' with full coverage. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond 'requested project,' so the baseline 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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Save the current project' and 'open the requested project in the real editor.' It clearly identifies the tool's function, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like scratchjr_edit_project or scratchjr_get_project, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scratchjr_edit_project, scratchjr_get_project, or scratchjr_run_project. The intended use is only implied by the name and description, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions stated.

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