open_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: closing the previous project without saving (destructive) and the long opening time. Additional details like success/failure indication or authentication requirements would improve 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?

Three concise sentences cover purpose, formats, side effect, and timing. No redundancy or unnecessary detail; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers core purpose, side effects, and timing, but lacks details on return value, error behavior, prerequisites (e.g., file existence, permissions), and any post-open state. For a simple open tool, it is moderately 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%, and the description adds no information about the 'path' parameter beyond the schema's type and name. It does not explain allowed path formats, relative vs. absolute paths, or file location 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 tool opens a Control Expert project file, lists supported formats (.stu, .sta, .xef/.zef), and notes the side effect of closing any previously open project. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_project, new_project, or save_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?

The description implies the tool is used to open existing project files and provides format support. It also alerts users to the expected duration (30-120 s). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like new_project for creating projects.

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