switchProject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the active project changes but does not mention whether this is persisted, whether it affects subsequent build operations, or whether it has side effects like requiring saved state. For a state-changing tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 extremely concise, with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the core action immediately. The brevity is appropriate for such a simple tool, though the lack of additional context prevents a perfect score.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to be considered complete. It does not explain prerequisites, side effects, failure modes, or what happens to current state when switching projects. An agent would likely need to consult other tools or documentation to understand the full operational context.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'name'. It is likely clear that 'name' refers to the target project name, but the description does not explicitly state that, nor does it clarify whether it is a display name, ID, or exact match. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('active build project'), which clearly conveys the tool's function as changing the currently selected project. It is distinct enough from siblings like listProjects, createProject, and deleteProject that an agent can infer this is not creating or deleting. However, 'active build project' is somewhat vague and could be clarified further.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used only with existing projects, nor does it explain any relationship to listProjects or getBuildInfo. The agent is left to infer usage context from the sibling tool names.

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