select_project

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

The annotations declare idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but not the statefulness of the operation. The description supplies that missing behavior: setting a session/project default that all other tools then inherit, which is decision-relevant context. It stops short of detailing failure behavior on a malformed path, though the schema's '.lsm file' requirement covers part of that.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the ordering constraint follows immediately. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

For a one-parameter priming tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it selects, how, and its ordering relationship to the rest of the toolset. Minor omissions remain (invalid-path handling, whether the selection persists across sessions), but nothing critical 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the '.lsm file' containment requirement. The description only restates 'by directory path', adding no format, resolution, or error semantics beyond what the schema already 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set the active LASAL project') plus the mechanism ('by directory path'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from operational siblings like inspect_project or build_project. The 'Call first' clause reinforces that this is the selecting/priming tool rather than one that acts on an already-selected project.

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?

Gives a concrete ordering rule — 'Call first — all other tools default to this project' — which tells the agent exactly when this tool is required and what its side effect enables. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative (e.g., what to do for multiple simultaneous projects), keeping it just short of a 5.

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