project_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context beyond the basic 'open' function. It discloses that the tool 'Creates dedicated TCP server for ultra-fast communication' and provides error-handling guidance. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like resource consumption or whether multiple instances can be opened simultaneously.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: declaring the tool's role, describing a key behavioral trait, and providing error-handling guidance. It uses emojis and formatting effectively without unnecessary verbosity.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides good context about the tool's behavior and usage. It could be more complete by explaining what 'opening' entails (e.g., whether it loads into memory, starts a session) or describing potential return values, but it adequately covers the essential information for tool selection and invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'projectPath' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'opening Visum projects' with the specific action 'open, load, or launch' and resource 'Visum project'. It distinguishes from siblings by being the 'DEFAULT TOOL' for this function, differentiating from other project-related tools like 'project_close' or 'project_execute'.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Always use this tool when asked to open, load, or launch any Visum project' and 'If you encounter errors, run 'instance_diagnosis' first!'. It clearly states when to use it (for opening projects) and references an alternative diagnostic tool for error scenarios.

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