open_project

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral context. 'Open' implies making the project active or loaded, but it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., does it close the current project? Does it require an unsaved project to be saved first?). The behavior is somewhat obvious but not fully transparent.

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 sentence that is efficient and without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key information.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain what 'open' means in terms of state changes (e.g., making it the current project), and it does not mention prerequisites or return value. Given no output schema and low parameter coverage, more detail would be beneficial.

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 is 'name', a string. The schema has 0% coverage (no description), and the tool description only adds 'by name', which is already implied by the parameter name. No additional semantics, format, or constraints are provided.

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 'Open an existing project by name.' clearly states the action (open), the resource (project), and the selection method (by name). It distinguishes from siblings like create_project, close_project, and list_projects.

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 alternatives. For example, it doesn't say that the project must already exist, or that it should be used before other project operations, or that close_project might need to be called first.

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