vivado_open_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Open an existing Vivado project', omitting any side effects, resource locking, or session implications. The agent gets no sense of whether this is a read-only operation or if it alters state.

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?

Single sentence of 10 words is very concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it slightly under-informative. Still, it is front-loaded and to the point.

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 context (3 parameters, output schema exists, many siblings), the description is too sparse. It lacks usage context, parameter details, and behavioral notes, leaving the agent with minimal guidance for correct invocation.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the 3 parameters (session_ref, project_path, timeout_seconds). The agent learns nothing about their purpose, format, or constraints beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Open') and the resource ('existing Vivado project'), distinguishing it from siblings like vivado_create_project. The phrase 'in the managed session' adds specific context without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vivado_create_project or vivado_add_sources. The description does not mention preconditions or scenarios where opening a project is appropriate.

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