open_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent this tool opens a file (a read operation), but it doesn't specify if it loads the project into memory, replaces the current project, or requires that no project is already open. It doesn't mention error behavior for missing files or unsupported formats.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete for basic use. However, it could benefit from noting whether the tool interacts with the current project state or if it has side effects like closing other projects. The lack of annotations means slightly more descriptive burden, but the tool is straightforward.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the 'path' parameter. It doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., absolute vs relative paths) or whether wildcards are allowed.

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 clearly states the verb 'Open' and the resource 'existing After Effects project'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_project' (which creates new projects) and 'close_project' (which closes projects). The scope is precise and 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 this should be used to open an existing project (as opposed to creating a new one with create_project), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it, prerequisites (e.g., whether the file must exist, permissions), or when not to use it. No alternatives or context are mentioned.

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