project_folder_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Navigate into a sub-folder', which implies a state change but does not specify error behavior, return value (despite an output schema existing), or whether it operates relative to the current folder.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning a top score.

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?

The tool is simple but the description is too minimal: it does not clarify whether 'sub-folder' is relative to the current project folder, what the output schema contains, or how it differs from other navigation tools. Given the large sibling tool set, more context is needed for correct usage.

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 fully describes the only parameter, folder_name, with 'Name of the folder to open.' The description adds no additional meaning, such as whether the name must be an immediate child or can include a path. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Navigate into' and a clear resource 'sub-folder within the project database', indicating a folder traversal action. It distinguishes from sibling navigation tools like project_folder_goto_parent/root by specifying 'sub-folder', but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_folder_goto_parent or project_folder_goto_root. There is no mention of prerequisites like folder existence or whether the folder is relative to the current project folder.

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