open_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It clearly warns that any previously open project is closed without saving, explains that XML formats are imported fresh, and sets expectations for long opening times (30-120 s). This is strong behavioral transparency for a state-changing tool.

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, each providing useful information: the action, supported formats, and two important behavioral caveats. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects needed to call the tool correctly: what it opens, which formats are supported, the destructive close-without-save behavior, and expected latency. Nothing critical 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 0% and the schema only says 'path'. The description adds meaningful parameter context by specifying that the path can point to .stu, .sta, .xef, or .zef files, and that certain formats are imported differently. It does not fully define path syntax but compensates well for a simple single-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?

States a specific verb ('Open') and a clear resource ('Control Expert project file'), and enumerates the supported file formats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like new_project and open_remoteconnect_logic 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?

The description implies when to use this tool by listing supported file extensions and mentioning that XML formats are imported into a fresh application. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as 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.