creator_open_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions opening in a running Inochi Creator but does not disclose that opening a project likely replaces the current one, discards unsaved changes, or requires specific permissions. This is a significant gap for a tool that mutates the application state.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point with no filler or redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what happens to the current project, error handling, return values, or the distinction from import operations. This leaves the agent with an incomplete picture for a state-changing operation.

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 already documents the 'path' parameter with 'Absolute path to the .inx project' at 100% coverage. The description adds a minor nuance by stating 'or compatible INP', which slightly extends the schema's documentation. Since the schema covers the parameter well, the description adds minimal additional meaning.

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 opens an .inx or INP project in the running Inochi Creator, using the specific verb 'Open' and identifying the resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like creator_new_project, though it does not explicitly differentiate from creator_import_inp, which may cause slight ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creator_new_project or creator_import_inp. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or preferred contexts, so the agent is left without enough information to select it confidently.

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