pbi_open_pbip_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool marks the project as active (a state change), detects specific folder types, and returns warnings. This goes beyond minimal disclosure by explaining expected behavior and potential warning conditions, though it does not mention whether files are modified or any error 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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the core action, the second explains what it detects and returns, and the third defines the parameter. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 an output schema, the description is relatively complete: it covers purpose, behavior, return summary, and parameter semantics. It lacks context on how 'active project' affects subsequent tools or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explicitly defining `path` as 'ruta al archivo .pbip o a su carpeta' (path to the .pbip file or its folder), which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare 'path' string. This fully clarifies the only parameter.

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: 'Abre un proyecto .pbip y lo marca como proyecto activo' (opens a .pbip project and marks it as active). It also specifies that it detects .SemanticModel and .Report folders and returns a summary with warnings, distinguishing it from validation or other project tools.

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 implies the tool is used to open a project and set it as active, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like pbi_validate_pbip_project or pbi_open_in_desktop. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, so 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.