project_open

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety traits. The description adds extra behavior: that it verifies committed sources and returns a revision, which is not in the annotations and gives useful operational context. This enriches transparency without contradicting the 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, compact sentence that states the action, target, and key outcomes. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every phrase adds value. No filler or redundant information.

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 read-only operation with one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, what it verifies, and what it returns. It does not mention prerequisites or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations, this is adequately complete. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return structure.

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 has only one parameter (project_id) with a regex pattern, but the schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no descriptive text in the schema. The description only says 'by ID,' which barely adds meaning beyond the parameter name itself. It does not explain the format, purpose, or constraints beyond what the pattern already implies, so the description carries minimal additional semantic weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reopen') and identifies the resource ('server-created project') along with the identifier type. It also mentions two concrete outcomes (verifying committed sources and returning revision), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like project_inspect or project_create.

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 usage context by specifying 'server-created project,' which suggests it is not for locally created ones, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. There is no guidance on when to choose project_open over project_inspect or project_update, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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