Project Select

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key stateful behavior: selection determines the target of subsequent project_* tools. However, it does not mention whether the selection persists, whether an invalid path causes an error, or whether any prior selection is replaced.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The core scoping information ('which open project... other project_* tools act on') is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter selector with an output schema and full schema parameter documentation, the description is nearly complete. The only shortfall is the lack of explicit behavioral detail about persistence and error handling, but no major information needed to call the tool correctly 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single `path` parameter, describing it as a path from `project_list`. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Choose'), a resource ('which open project'), and the tool's role in the family ('the other project_* tools act on'). This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like project_list, project_open, and project_new, and from all other project_* operations.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: before other project_* tools, to set which open project they act on. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the role as a context selector is unambiguous and sufficient for a simple one-parameter tool.

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