Create Project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a specific template, that an empty project is insufficient, and that the previous open project is closed (a side effect). It also references documentation for environment specifics. This is substantial behavioral disclosure, covering key side effects and constraints. It doesn't mention error handling or return format, but the output schema covers that. Score 4 is appropriate.

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 (a few sentences), well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It delivers the critical behavioral details (template choice, why not empty, closing previous project) without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan. 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 tool with 2 optional parameters and no required ones, the description covers the essential aspects: template selection, rationale for not using empty projects, the side effect of closing the previous project, and a documentation reference. The output schema presumably covers return values. It doesn't mention potential errors or prerequisites, but given the simplicity and existing schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete. A 4 is fair.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds extra context: end_time is changed via set_calc_time, and project_hint is just a message hint while the actual name is set by the environment. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions and clarifies the practical use of the parameters. Thus it adds meaningful value, earning a 4.

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 creates a new SimInTech project from a specific template ('empty model' but actually the delivery template). It distinguishes this from the default empty project and from sibling tools like open_project and close_project. The verb 'create' and resource 'project' are explicit, and the template distinction is a strong differentiator.

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 this tool: to create a project with proper calculation settings, and explicitly warns against using NewProject or an empty project. It also mentions that the previous project is closed, which is important context. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives like open_project for existing projects, but the context is clear enough. It gives a usage scenario and a warning, so it's above average.

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