pbi_open_pbip_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool detects .SemanticModel and .Report folders, returns a summary with warnings, and marks the project as active. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies project files), failure modes, or permissions required. The 'marks as active' implies internal state change but lacks detail.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the main action, then explains what the tool detects and returns, and finally clarifies the parameter. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers the tool's core functionality: opening the project, marking it active, detecting TMDL/PBIR folders, and returning a warning summary. It provides an example warning, which is helpful. Since an output schema exists, it need not explain return values. It could mention how 'active project' affects subsequent tool calls, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema provides only a parameter name 'path' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates well by explicitly defining 'path' as 'ruta al archivo .pbip o a su carpeta' (path to the .pbip file or its folder), adding meaningful context about what values are acceptable. This goes beyond the bare schema.

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's primary action ('Abre un proyecto .pbip' / opens a .pbip project) and a specific consequence ('lo marca como proyecto activo' / marks it as active). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pbi_validate_pbip_project or pbi_backup_pbip_project by focusing on opening and activating the project, not validating or backing it up.

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 that this tool should be used to open a project before working with it, as it marks the project as active. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'active project' concept hints at a workflow, but explicit guidance is missing.

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