project_open

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning that it verifies committed sources and returns a revision, which are useful traits beyond the annotation coverage. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, with no redundant words. Every clause adds information, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and key behaviors. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema handles that. However, it could have provided a brief note on when to use it relative to siblings, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity operation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for missing parameter details. The only parameter, project_id, is mentioned generically as 'by ID' but not elaborated on (format, pattern, constraints). The schema provides the pattern, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what is already inferable from the 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 action ('Reopen'), the resource ('server-created project'), the method (by ID), and additional details (verifies committed sources, returns revision). It distinguishes itself from siblings like project_create and project_inspect by specifying the reopen operation.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for reopening an existing project but does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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