open_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say a session is created/held, whether state persists until close_project, whether calling twice is an error, or how fps affects output. Only the two enumerations add real information.

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?

Front-loaded and free of filler; the key action comes first followed by the two enumerations. The telegraphic 'quality: draft|low|medium|high' style is terse but parseable, and nothing superfluous is included.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for a stateful session-opening tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description omits the lifecycle contract, the meaning of defaults, and the fps parameter entirely.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it supplies value domains for quality and theme that the schema lacks (schema declares them as free-form strings with no enums). However, 'fps' is never mentioned and no defaults or effects of quality/theme are explained.

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?

'Start a project session' gives a clear verb and resource, and 'open' vs the sibling 'close_project'/'inspect_project' is self-evident. It never explicitly distinguishes itself from those siblings, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 call it, whether it must precede add_scene/add_equation, whether an existing session must be closed first, or what happens if one is already open. The agent has to infer the whole session lifecycle from sibling names.

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