project_open

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it replaces the current project, discards in-memory state, fails on unsaved changes unless force is set, and returns the same shape as project_info. This provides comprehensive side-effect and error information.

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?

Four sentences, each purposeful: first states the action, second explains the replacement behavior, third details error handling with force, fourth notes return type. Front-loaded and efficient, no fluff.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (referenced via 'same shape as project_info'), the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, side effects, error conditions, parameter guidance, and output reference. It is complete and actionable.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning for the 'force' parameter (allows discarding unsaved changes) and implies 'path' should be a .qgs/.qgz file path. This partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 a .qgs/.qgz project file') and the resource ('project file'), with a specific verb ('Open') and resource type. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like project_new, project_save, and project_info by focusing on opening an existing file.

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 explains when to use the tool (to open a project file) and conditions that affect its behavior (unsaved changes cause ProjectDirty error unless force is set). It advises to confirm with the user before using force. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools, the context is clear.

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