open_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Open') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this initializes a session, requires specific permissions, affects other tools, or what happens on failure (e.g., invalid path). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse without unnecessary details.

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 complexity (opening a project likely involves session management or state changes), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Open' entails behaviorally or what the agent should expect after invocation, leaving gaps for effective use.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'path' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional context like path format examples or constraints.

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 ('a Scrivener project (.scriv folder)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_document' or 'compile_manuscript' by focusing on project-level access, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions, or how it relates to other tools like 'read_document' for accessing project contents, leaving usage context unclear.

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