open_project

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the exact return contents (project_ref, metadata, limits, etc.), which helps the agent anticipate the output. No contradictions with the 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 a single, dense sentence that conveys the action and the full set of returned items without extraneous words. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 parameter, read-only semantics, output schema provided), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and expected output. It lacks usage guidance against siblings, but that is a separate dimension and not critical for understanding this tool's core function.

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 provides only a 'project_root' string parameter with no description. The description clarifies that it must be an absolute root path, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare type. It does not provide examples or path format details, but for a single parameter this is adequate.

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 'Open' and identifies the resource 'project by absolute root,' enumerating the returned fields (project_ref, metadata, limits, supported values, event position, guide links). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from siblings like get_project by specifying the absolute root requirement and the detailed return payload.

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 such as get_project or export_project. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name alone.

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