rsap_open_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing side effects, but it only states the action without mentioning potential state changes (e.g., closing the current project), prerequisites (like requiring an active connection), or failure behaviors (e.g., invalid path handling).

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 clear verb-first opening and a structured Args block. Every word earns its place, and the format is standard for documentation.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the description is relatively complete for a simple open action. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing to connect first via rsap_connect) and expected return values, which are not covered by annotations or schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying the path must be 'absolute' and points to a '.rtd file on the machine running Robot', which is valuable context beyond the bare schema title 'Path'. However, it could be more detailed about constraints like file existence or extension.

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 'Open an existing Robot model from an absolute .rtd path', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rsap_new_project and rsap_close_project by explicitly targeting existing models.

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 phrase 'an existing Robot model' implies this tool is for opening previously saved projects, as opposed to creating new ones. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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