resolve_load_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses nothing beyond the action itself — no mention that opening a project switches the current project context, no failure behavior when the project does not exist, and no side effects. The description adds essentially no behavioral context.

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 three lines with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The Args block is redundant with the schema, which is a minor inefficiency, but overall it is tight and quick to parse.

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 tool with one required parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the what and the parameter, and return values are handled by the output schema. But it omits prerequisites (project must already exist) and failure behavior, making it only minimally adequate.

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. It offers only 'name: Project name to load', which is a near-restatement of the schema property title 'Name' and adds minimal meaning. Under conditions demanding compensation, this falls short.

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?

'Open a project by name' states a specific verb (open), a resource (project), and a scoping qualifier (by name) that ties to the single parameter. The verb distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_create_project and resolve_save_project. However, 'open' is near-synonymous with the tool's 'load', so the statement borders on restating the name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as the project needing to already exist (e.g., created via resolve_create_project), nor does it state any exclusions or context in which a sibling would be preferred. No guidance is provided at all.

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