open_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'open', implying state mutation, but does not mention effects on current project, permissions needed, error handling, or safety. This is a significant gap for a state-changing 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?

The description is extremely concise at 4 words, but it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence. It is front-loaded and has zero waste, but the brevity sacrifices structure and clarity. A 5 would require a complete sentence with scope.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema), the description should still explain the outcome (e.g., sets as current project) and any side effects. It lacks information on return values, errors, or prerequisites, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the 'name' parameter. The description adds no extra context beyond 'by name', so it meets the baseline. No additional semantics like case sensitivity or format are provided, but the schema already covers the parameter's purpose.

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 'Open a project by name' clearly identifies the action (open) and resource (project), distinguishing it from siblings like create_project or list_projects. However, it lacks specificity on what 'open' entails (e.g., navigates to, sets as current), which would elevate it to a 5.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_current_project or list_projects. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no context on expected state (e.g., project must exist). This is insufficient for effective decision-making.

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