bdesign_project_open

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool produces a browser handoff for live observation, which is useful behavioral context. It does not explain what a 'handoff' entails or whether it changes the current selection, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, and the usage timing is front-loaded in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has four optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description leaves most parameter semantics unexplained. It also does not clarify how to identify the project or what a browser handoff returns. The read-only and idempotent annotations help, but the description alone is not enough for an agent to confidently call this tool with correct arguments.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only indirectly covers the view parameter by listing Canvas, Editor, Studio, and Assets. It does not explain projectId, time, or focusCardId, nor does it clarify that all parameters are optional or how the 'selected' project is determined.

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 tool returns a browser handoff for a BeatDesign project, which is a distinct action from project_get or canvas_view. It names the specific views (Canvas, Editor, Studio, Assets) that the handoff supports. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but the verb and resource are specific enough.

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 description gives explicit timing guidance: 'Use it early so the user can watch Agent changes.' This tells the agent when in a workflow to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the early-use context is actionable and clear.

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