project_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 does not state whether opening a project is destructive, whether it prompts to save the current project, or what happens on an invalid or nonexistent path.

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?

A single concise sentence with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of skipping useful behavioral and usage context.

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?

For a state-changing operation with no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description is too thin. It omits the effect on the current session, failure behavior, and any return value, leaving an agent with insufficient context to invoke it safely.

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 only parameter, 'path', has no schema description and the schema coverage is 0%. The description implies the path should point to an existing .flp file, but it doesn't specify path format, absolute/relative requirements, or error handling for bad paths.

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?

States a specific verb ('open') and resource ('existing .flp project'), which distinguishes it from sibling project operations like project_new, project_save, and project_save_as. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the action is clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus project_new, project_save, or project_save_as. There are no prerequisites mentioned, such as whether the current project is automatically closed or if the user is prompted to save changes.

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