resolve_open_project

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint false) and is idempotent (idempotentHint true). The description adds that saving happens 'by default' and is controlled by the save_current parameter. This clarifies the side effect but does not disclose failure cases or authorization needs.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the main action. Slightly more structure could help (e.g., separating the two steps), but it earns its length.

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 tool with an output schema (not shown), the description explains the basic operation. However, missing details like error handling (if project not found), prerequisites (project must exist), and the effect of save_current=false limit completeness. It is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'save current project by default' which correlates with the save_current parameter's default value. However, it gives no detail about the required 'name' parameter (e.g., must be an existing project). This adds partial value but leaves a gap.

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 saves the current project and then opens an existing named project. It distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_create_project (create new) and resolve_save_project (only save) by combining both actions. The verb 'open' and resource 'project' are specific.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resolve_create_project or resolve_save_project. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it. An agent would have to infer context.

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