rsap_new_project

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

The description does not disclose any side effects or dependencies, such as whether creating a new project discards unsaved changes, requires an active connection, or affects the current project state. With no annotations available, this lack of transparency is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 concise, with a one-sentence summary and a brief parameter list. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information, though the Args section duplicates schema information but is acceptable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core action and parameter values, but it lacks important contextual information such as when to use it relative to other project tools and the meaning of each project type. These gaps prevent it from being fully 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 description adds the list of allowed values for project_type ('shell, frame_3d, frame_2d, truss_3d, truss_2d, plate, grillage'), which is not present in the schema (schema coverage is 0%). However, it does not explain what each project type means, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 function: 'Create a new, empty Robot project.' This is a specific verb (Create) and resource (Robot project), and it distinguishes itself from sibling project tools like open, save, and close.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rsap_open_project or rsap_save_project. The context of siblings implies it is for starting a new project, but this is not stated, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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