open_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful trait (backup triggered on a dirty project), but leaves unexplained what 'approved' means, whether unsaved changes are discarded, what 'dirty' is detected from, or whether this is destructive to current state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action leads and the conditional constraint follows. Nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be covered, but for a 5-parameter project-opening operation with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, one sentence is far too thin. The agent lacks the information needed to set confirm, overwrite_backup, or backup_current_path safely.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. The word 'backup' hints that backup_mode, backup_current_path, and overwrite_backup exist, but confirm and project_path receive no explanation and the string/boolean semantics of the backup options are undefined.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Open an approved .spp'), including the file type, which distinguishes it from create_project and plan_project_creation in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming the adjacent tools (close_project, save_project), but an agent can infer the operation unambiguously.

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?

Provides one conditional usage rule — a backup is required when the current project is dirty — which tells the agent something about preconditions. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over create_project or save_project, and no instruction on how to handle 'confirm' or 'overwrite_backup' before invoking.

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