pro_visualize_open_project

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: it is an API request rather than UI automation, and success means only that the API accepted the call. It stops short of saying what happens on failure or when a project is already open, keeping it out of the top band.

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 sentences, correctly front-loaded with the action and mechanism, followed by the verification caveat. Every clause adds information; nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key semantic caveat (acceptance-only reporting) that an agent needs to interpret the result. It omits behavior around an already-open project or error conditions, but the essential picture is complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of `path`, and it does: the value must point to an existing local file with the .SVPJ extension. It does not address absolute-path or escaping conventions, which is the only remaining gap for a one-parameter tool.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Request opening an existing local .SVPJ project') and pins down the mechanism (native SOLIDWORKS Visualize 2026+ API, no UI automation), which cleanly separates it from siblings like open_part, open_assembly, and the render-oriented pro_visualize_* tools.

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 through the '.SVPJ project' scope; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the general open_part/open_assembly tools or whether pro_visualize_status should be consulted first. The agent can infer the domain, but no alternatives or preconditions are named.

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