project_open

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it reports editor lock files, telling the agent whether KiCad currently has the project open – a behavioral fact the annotations cannot convey.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a tight enumeration of outputs. No waste; only the minor cost of a long comma list.

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 need not be re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with the described scope, this is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'path' parameter already documents that it accepts a project directory or any .kicad_pro/.kicad_sch/.kicad_pcb inside it. The description adds nothing to parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 pair ('locate' and 'describe') applied to a concrete resource (a KiCad project) and enumerates exactly what it returns: root schematic, board, sheets, text variables, netclasses, format versions, lock files. This is far more specific than a sibling like review_project, though it never draws the boundary against that sibling explicitly.

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 – an agent can infer this is the entry-point inspection call before other project operations, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of how it differs from the similarly-scoped review_project.

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