works_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that no version-upgrade prompt appears, the project is left unsaved, the return payload (window pid, official instance_id, project directory), and the important constraint that the project cannot be deleted while the window is open.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then the workflow and cleanup sequence follow in a logical order. It is dense but nearly every clause carries operational information; only the closing cleanup sentence is slightly verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explicitly enumerates the return values and the required teardown steps, so an agent knows both what it gets back and how to clean up. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents template_id, instance_id, and project_path including the either/or relationship. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('下载一个首页作品并在新的编辑器窗口里打开') and pins down the exact semantics by equating it to clicking a work on the homepage. This distinguishes it from siblings like project_open (existing project) and works_download (download only).

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?

It lays out a full lifecycle: open, observe with get_scene/capture_preview, close with project_close(discard_changes=true), then works_cleanup. That is clear when-to-use and follow-up guidance, though it never explicitly contrasts with project_open or works_download as alternatives.

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