open_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Open') but doesn't describe what happens upon opening (e.g., loads project into memory, makes it active, potential performance impact, or error conditions). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of opening a project file (a mutation operation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, or what the tool returns, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand its full context.

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%, with the single parameter 'filePath' fully documented in the schema as 'Absolute path to the .aep file'. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as file format constraints or path examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Open') and resource ('existing After Effects project file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project' (new vs. existing) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'close_project' or other file operations. The description is specific but lacks full sibling differentiation.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist, project must be closed), when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like 'create_project' or 'close_project'. Usage is implied by the action but without explicit context.

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