open_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly discloses the key side effect (all later calls act on the opened project) and the output behavior (echoes the new context for confirmation). It does not mention error behavior or reversibility, but the most critical behavioral trait is well covered.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose, prerequisites, and output behavior with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and every clause 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 context-switching tool, the description covers the use case, how to get valid input, and how to verify success. An output schema exists, so return details need not be spelled out. The description is sufficient without being verbose.

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 only defines 'name' as a required string with no description. The description adds essential semantics: the name must match exactly, and list_projects provides the available names. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage and makes the parameter's meaning unambiguous.

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 ('Open') and resource ('named project') and immediately clarifies the tool's actual function: making the project the target of every later tool call. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects and snapshot_project, which serve different purposes.

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 explains that the name must match exactly and points to list_projects as the way to discover valid names, providing clear prerequisite context. It does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools, but the context-switching purpose is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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