project_open

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., replacing current project, prompts to save), error behavior for missing files, or any prerequisites beyond existence.

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 extremely concise, with a clear purpose statement and a single argument definition. All content earns its place with no unnecessary wording.

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 simple open operation, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context such as whether it loads into the current session, interactions with unsaved changes, or return behavior. Given no annotations or output schema, a bit more explanation would be beneficial.

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 description explains the parameter meaning beyond the schema: 'Absolute path to the .aup3 project file' adds specificity about path type and file extension, which the schema does not provide.

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 opens an existing Audacity project file (.aup3), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from project_new by using 'existing', though it does not explicitly compare to siblings like raw_open or project_import_audio.

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 such as raw_open or project_import_audio. The description focuses only on the action, not on context or exclusions.

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