Create New Project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as whether the tool overwrites an existing file at the path, creates directories, or affects the currently open project. This lack of detail undermines safe usage.

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 of 10 words, making it highly concise. It wastes no words, but the conciseness comes at the cost of missing important details. Structure is acceptable for a simple tool but could benefit from breaking into key points.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., project object or success status). It also does not address edge cases like existing files or directory creation. For a tool with one required parameter, the description is incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but adds minimal value beyond stating 'given path'. It does not specify expected format, file extension, or constraints (e.g., must be a .qgs file). The parameter name 'path' is self-explanatory, but the description adds little actionable detail.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'new empty QGIS project', and specifies saving to a given path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like load_project or save_project which operate on existing projects.

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 (e.g., load_project for existing projects, save_project for saving changes). The description does not mention exclusions or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling context.

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