origin_open_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'open' but does not disclose side effects like whether the current project is closed, whether unsaved changes are handled, or what the 'readonly' and 'asksave' parameters imply.

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 one sentence (7 words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices completeness. It is concise but lacks necessary detail.

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 three parameters with no descriptions, no annotation guidance, and a moderate number of siblings, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover what the tool does beyond the basic action.

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 the description adds no information about the three parameters (path, readonly, asksave). An agent cannot infer parameter meanings from this description.

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 verb 'Open' and the resource 'an existing Origin OPJU/OPJ project', distinguishing it from sibling tools like origin_new_project (create new) and origin_list_project (list projects).

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 implies it is for opening existing projects but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., origin_new_project, origin_import_file). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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