desktop_open_cc_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. It only says 'open a visible window', which implies a GUI interaction, but gives no detail on permissions, prerequisites, side effects (e.g., whether existing sessions are reused), or what 'visible' means. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but too brief to be informative. It lacks structure and prioritizes brevity over clarity, resulting in under-specification. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one omits critical details.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not address how to use the tool, what the parameters represent, or what the outcome looks like. The agent lacks the context needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (cli, cli_args, terminal, session_id, project_path). The agent has no information about what these parameters do or how to use them, making the tool nearly unusable without external knowledge.

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 the tool opens a visible Claude Code/Codex window for a project, which is a specific verb-resource pair. However, it remains vague by using 'a certain project' and does not clarify what 'Claude Code/Codex' is. It also does not distinguish from sibling tools like cc_open_visible_session or desktop_open_cc_project_named.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'voice-friendly entry' hints at a voice activation context but does not explain scenarios or exclude other tools. The description lacks any direct comparison or usage conditions.

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