project_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful lifecycle context (warm-attach semantics, restart recovery, lazy opening by other tools), but says nothing about failure modes for an unknown project_id, whether existing engine state or unsaved changes are discarded on reload, or what a successful attach produces.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core operation stated first and the lifecycle caveat second. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter stateful tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what and the when reasonably. It omits the resulting state, error behavior on a bad project_id, and whether reload mutates or resets the loaded project, which an agent needs before invoking a state-changing attach.

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%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds only a small clarification via '(or a different .ioc)', which explains that the ioc param can name a file other than the project's default.

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 specific action pair (attach engine, reload .ioc) against a known project, and the parenthetical clarifies the ioc can be swapped for a different one. It is distinguishable from siblings like project_create/project_close, though the phrase 'warm CubeMX engine' is internal jargon an agent may not decode.

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?

'Needed after a server restart' gives an explicit trigger condition, and 'other tools open lazily too' implies the agent can often skip this call entirely. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. project_get or project_list) or stating what to do if project_id is unknown.

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