overleaf_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 of behavioral disclosure. It notes that file tools open projects automatically and that this operation affects the visible Overleaf UI, but it does not mention authentication requirements, side effects on the browser session, or whether any state changes occur.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds practical usage guidance without redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, invocation method, and the primary use case. It omits authentication expectations and exact browser behavior, but the tool's low complexity means the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 input schema already fully documents project_id with format, source, and required status at 100% coverage. The description merely references opening by project ID and adds no additional semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Open a project in the browser by its project ID') and clearly identifies the resource. It also distinguishes the tool from file tools, which open projects automatically, helping an agent tell this apart from sibling file operations.

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 gives explicit guidance: file tools open projects automatically, so this tool is mainly for inspecting or recovering the visible Overleaf UI. It provides clear context and an implicit exclusion, though it does not name a specific alternative tool or list exhaustive when-not-to-use conditions.

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