Open Project

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, alerting the agent to destructiveness, but the description adds no context about what is destroyed (e.g., current project state) or whether it prompts for unsaved changes. It only restates the basic action.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it omits additional context that would be valuable.

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 the tool's destructive annotation and its relationship to siblings, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the impact of opening a project (e.g., replacing the current one) or when to prefer open_board. Even with a good schema, the behavioral and usage context 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?

The single parameter filename is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with a clear path format. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 action (open) and resource (existing KiCAD project), aligning with the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling open_board, which could confuse an agent about which to use.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like open_board or close_project. The description is a bare instruction with no context or exclusions.

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