project_open

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

No annotations and description only says 'open'. It does not disclose behavior like whether it closes the current project, handles errors, or requires a specific file format. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 very concise (one sentence) but it is structurally sound. However, it could be improved with slight expansion to cover usage context without being verbose.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description provides the essential action. However, it lacks context for side effects and expected input format, making it adequate but not thorough.

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 'path' lacks description in schema (0% coverage). The description does not clarify expected format (absolute/relative, .flp extension required). No examples or constraints provided.

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 .flp project). It is specific but does not distinguish from sibling tools like project_new or project_save.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., project_new for creating, project_save for saving). No context about prerequisites or typical usage.

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