ap_project_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses the most critical trait: "Discards the current project without prompting." This tells the agent the operation is destructive and irreversible with respect to the current session state. It omits permissions, error behavior, and return values, but the single most important runtime consequence is explicit.

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, and each earns its place: the action is front-loaded first, then the destructive consequence. No redundant restatement of the tool name or schema content.

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 open command with full schema coverage, the description covers both the action and the critical side effect. Remaining gaps—no return/error behavior and no explicit "save before opening" advisory—are minor and do not mislead an agent about the tool's core behavior.

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 description coverage is 100% and the path parameter is already richly documented (absolute path, forward slashes, backslash conversion). The description's ".arm" mention reinforces the file type already present in the schema but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond it. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the weight.

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 resource—"an existing .arm project file." The word "existing" plus the open action clearly distinguishes this from siblings like ap_project_new, ap_project_save, and ap_project_save_as, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never advises saving the current project first (a natural precondition given the destructive behavior), nor does it name conditions where ap_project_new or other project tools would be preferable. The discard warning implies caution but stops short of actionable usage direction.

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