open_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether opening a project mutates or locks state, whether it is idempotent, what happens if the project is already open, or what errors can occur.

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 nine-word sentence with no filler, and the read/state framing is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the gaps scored elsewhere rather than to wastefulness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description should explain the identifier format and what 'state and revision' are returned as. As written, an agent cannot reliably construct the call or predict the result.

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 description coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter, 'project'. The description never says whether this is a name, ID, or file path, nor how to obtain a valid value, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a verb ('Read') and a resource ('project state and revision'), but the resource does not match the tool name 'open_project' — it never says the project is opened/loaded or what 'opening' implies. It gives no differentiation from the ten sibling tools.

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?

'before source-time edits' supplies a concrete trigger condition, which is more than most descriptions offer. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the when-not case entirely to inference.

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