project_open

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

The main description does not disclose that opening a project automatically closes and saves the current project. This important side-effect is only mentioned in the parameter description within the input schema, and since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden but fails to surface it.

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, 'Open an existing project by name.', which is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It is maximally concise while conveying the core action.

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?

Despite minimal description, the tool is simple with only one parameter that is well-documented in the schema, and an output schema exists to clarify return values. The combination of description and schema provides sufficient context for correct invocation, though it lacks explicit guidance on alternative tools or error conditions.

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 single parameter 'name' is fully documented in the schema, including the requirement for the exact name and the observable side-effect of closing/saving the current project. The main description adds no additional parameter meaning, so with 100% schema coverage, a 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 uses a specific verb 'open' and targets 'existing project by name', clearly distinguishing it from project_create, project_close, and project_delete. It precisely states the action and resource, leaving no ambiguity.

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 implies usage by specifying 'existing project', which hints at being an alternative to creation tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool names mentioned.

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