Project Open

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool registers and activates a project, but it does not mention side effects, validation of goboscript.toml, whether it changes stored state, what happens to the previously active project, or whether it is safe and reversible. This is meaningful but incomplete.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetitive wording. It efficiently communicates the action and the object without restating the tool name.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema exists, so the return shape does not need to be explained here. However, the description omits useful operational context such as what 'active' means for subsequent tool calls, whether the project is validated, and how this relates to other project-oriented siblings. It is minimally sufficient but not richly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about path or published_project_id beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Register') and a clear resource ('existing goboscript project directory'), and it adds the stateful consequence 'make it active,' which separates it from generic open or info tools like sb3_open_project or project_info. It does not explicitly name a sibling or define what 'active' means, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 a workflow—registering and activating an existing goboscript project—but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention alternatives or explain how this differs from spy_open_project, sb3_open_project, or project_check_toolchain, leaving the agent to infer when this tool should be selected.

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