aedt_open_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects (e.g., loading time, changes to active project status, error conditions). The description is too brief to provide adequate transparency.

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, which is concise, but it fails to convey essential details. Every word should add value, but here the sentence adds little beyond the tool's name. It is under-speficied rather than appropriately concise.

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 the presence of an output schema (unseen) and the complexity of the operation, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or behavior when the project file is invalid. The parameters are not elaborated, leaving significant gaps.

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%, meaning the input schema lacks descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no information about 'project_path' (expected format? absolute/relative?) or 'design_name' (purpose or allowed values). This leaves the agent guessing about parameter usage.

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 'AEDT project file', and specifies the context 'in the active desktop session'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'aedt_new_project' (create) and 'aedt_list_projects' (list). It is specific and 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, what happens if the project is already open, or when to avoid using it. With many sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing.

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