project_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it discloses two non-obvious behaviors: the idempotent short-circuit when the project is already open, and that old-version projects can trigger an upgrade dialog which requires manual confirmation in the editor. It does not cover failure modes (invalid path, missing effect.dyehpj), permission needs, or whether the call blocks, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Three short sentences, the core action first, then the return values, then the one operational caveat. Every sentence adds information an agent needs, with no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully names the return values (pid, instance_id) and warns about the upgrade dialog, so an agent knows what to expect after calling it. Only error behavior and the difference from works_open are left unaddressed.

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 documents the single path parameter at 100% coverage, including that it is absolute and must include effect.dyehpj, so the description need not repeat it. The description adds no extra meaning about path format or path aliases, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 says exactly what it does: opens an existing project (已有工程) in a new window, and it also covers the already-open case. 'Existing' implicitly contrasts with the sibling project_new, but it never names brothers like project_new, project_close, or works_open, so an agent must infer which one to choose.

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?

Usage is only implied: it applies to an existing project folder, and if the window is already open it returns directly, which is useful idempotency context. There is no explicit 'use project_new instead when...' or warning about when not to call it, so the guidance is adequate but not directive.

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