as_open_project

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

The description confirms no modification of project files, which aligns with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations. It adds that the IDE is launched or reused, providing useful context beyond 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 concise with three sentences covering purpose, behavior, and return value. It uses a structured Args/Returns format without unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers core aspects: purpose, non-modification, and return type. It lacks mention of error handling or prerequisites like Android Studio being installed, but these are minor omissions.

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?

Even though the schema has a description for project_dir, the context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage, putting the burden on the description. The description states 'project_dir (must exist)', which adds meaning but could be more detailed about format or absolute/relative paths.

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 'Open an existing project directory in Android Studio', specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like as_project_create (create project) and as_open_file (open file) by focusing on opening an existing project.

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 mentions that the project_dir must exist and that the IDE is launched or reused. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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