project_new

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that starting a new project may discard unsaved changes or replace the current project, nor does it mention any confirmation or side effects. For a state-changing operation, this is a notable omission.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the optional parameter in a parenthetical. There is no filler, redundancy, or 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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, but it has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must supply behavioral context. It explains the action but not the impact on the current project or what a successful call yields, leaving an agent under-informed for a potentially destructive operation.

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 has one parameter ('template') with 0% description coverage. The description compensates partially by identifying it as a template path and noting it is optional, but it does not clarify accepted path formats, where templates reside, or what happens when the parameter is omitted.

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 ('Start') and resource ('a new project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like project_open and project_save. The parenthetical about an optional template path adds precision without 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 usage context is only implied by the word 'new' and the verb 'start'. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like project_open or project_save, and no mention of when not to use it.

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