Open a project workspace directory and analyze its structure, project type, solution file, language, git status, metadata, and file tree.
Opens and analyzes a project workspace directory. Identifies project type (dotnet, node, python, etc.), solution file, project count, primary language, git status, metadata, and file tree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to the workspace project directory to open. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of explaining side effects. The output list strongly implies a read-only analysis operation, but the tool does not explicitly state that it leaves the workspace unmodified or what 'opens' means in behavioral terms. It partially covers transparency but not fully.
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 sentences with the main action front-loaded and the analysis outputs compactly listed. Every sentence earns its place and there is no unnecessary detail.
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?
With only one parameter and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete and does list expected output categories. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify how results are returned, nor does it address the obvious overlap with wincode_analyze_workspace. It is usable but not fully complete.
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 schema already provides a clear and complete description for the single required parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description mostly restates that the path points to a project workspace directory without adding meaningful new parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific action ('opens and analyzes') plus a resource ('project workspace directory') and lists concrete analysis outputs. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling wincode_analyze_workspace, which appears to cover a nearly identical capability.
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 only implies a general use case of analyzing a workspace; it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. Given the sibling list includes wincode_analyze_workspace and several other analysis-related tools, the lack of alternative routing is a meaningful gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.