chatgpt_select_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 a non-mutating behavior, the opening action, and the verification method (project URL and page title). It does not cover failure behavior or session-state side effects, but the described behavior is transparent for a select/verify tool.

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 that front-loads the action, then states verification and exclusions. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, verification, and non-mutation well. It leaves some gaps: expected return/result behavior and the optional/required relationship of the two parameters, which an agent would need for fully confident invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions both 'name' and 'projectId' and frames them as identifiers to be verified, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not clarify whether one or both are required, how they relate, or what happens if they conflict.

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?

States a concrete action ('open the specified ChatGPT Project') and adds a verification responsibility (projectId/name via URL and page title). It explicitly distinguishes itself from content-mutating siblings by declaring it will not create, move, or upload content.

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?

Provides clear usage context: open a specified project. The statement 'will not create, move, or upload content' acts as a when-not signal, steering the agent away from this tool for those actions. However, it does not name the alternative sibling tools explicitly.

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