open_project

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

Despite having no annotations, the description proactively discloses that the tool '[MODIFIES MODEL]', a non-obvious behavioral trait that could affect the model state. This goes beyond a plain 'open' action and helps the agent understand side effects. However, it does not elaborate on the nature or extent of the modification.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It places the critical modification note at the start, immediately conveying an important side effect. Perfectly concise.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description might be expected to cover the essential usage context. However, the complete lack of parameter details and usage guidance means the agent cannot reliably call this tool. The modification warning adds value, but the description is insufficient for correct 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?

The input schema has a single 'path' parameter with zero description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanation of what format, type, or location the path should be (e.g., absolute/relative, file extension). The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the parameter name, leaving the parameter's semantics completely undefined.

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 action ('Open') and the resource ('Mechanical project/database file'), which differentiates it from siblings like 'connect_mechanical' (connecting to an existing session) or 'get_project_info' (retrieving info). The meaning is unambiguous and specific.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool should be used before accessing project data, nor does it indicate when the user might prefer 'connect_mechanical' or 'get_project_info'. The description gives no situational context.

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