eda_dmt_project_open_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral consequence: opening a project when another is open with unsaved changes will lose all unsaved data. It also notes the return value is a boolean indicating success. This is significant and useful, though it does not mention other side effects like authentication or blocking behavior.

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 relatively concise, containing a signature, a short Chinese label, a crucial remark, and a return note. It is front-loaded with the signature and warning, and does not contain excessive filler. The only minor redundancy is '打开工程' repeating the signature's intent, but it is brief.

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 open-project operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential return value (boolean) and the critical data-loss warning. It does not explain the 'windowId' parameter, but the schema covers that. It also does not discuss error handling or invalid UUID cases, but that is not necessary for basic usage. Overall it is adequately complete.

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 descriptions for both 'args' and 'windowId' (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds the function signature, clarifying that the 'args' array should contain a 'projectUuid' string. This directly maps the signature parameter to the schema structure, adding meaningful semantics beyond the generic 'JSON parameter array' description.

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 explicitly states 'dmt_Project.openProject(projectUuid: string) -> Promise<boolean>' and '打开工程' (open project), and the remarks clarify it opens the specified project in the EDA frontend. This is a clear, specific verb+resource (open + project) and is distinct from the many project-management siblings (create, delete, get info, etc.).

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does and includes a warning about data loss; it does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools for similar operations. The intended use is only implied by the name and description.

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