Spy Open Project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool can both open and create a file, and that it sets a context for subsequent spy_* tools. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the file doesn't exist (does it create a blank project?), whether it overwrites existing content, or what the output schema contains. The 'or create' behavior is useful 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?

One sentence with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the scoping note about other spy_* tools is placed at the end. 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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the tool's role in the spy_* workflow. However, it doesn't clarify the create-vs-open decision logic, error behavior, or what the output schema contains. Given the tool's role as a session/context setter, a bit more detail on state effects would help.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'path' implicitly by saying 'a .spy project file', but doesn't clarify whether the path should include the .spy extension, whether directories are created, or what happens if the path is invalid. With only one parameter, the description adds some meaning but leaves format details to the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Open (or create)') and resource ('.spy project file'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that all other spy_* tools act on it. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like project_open or sb3_open_project, but the spy_* namespace and the 'all other spy_* tools act on it' clause provide enough differentiation.

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: before using any other spy_* tool, since they act on the opened project. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like project_open or sb3_open_project for other project types. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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