Open Project

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key non-obvious behavior: opening a project closes the previously open project. This is valuable. It also mentions the file extensions. However, it doesn't disclose other potential behaviors like error handling, behavior when the path is invalid, or whether the operation is destructive. Still, the disclosed side effect is significant, so a 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 two sentences with zero fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the secondary behavior is succinctly added. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and an important side effect. It lacks details on error conditions or return values, but those are partially covered by the output schema. Given the tool's simplicity, it's fairly complete, though not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does add meaning by implying the path should be to a .prt or .xprt file, which guides the agent. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the path should be a file or directory, nor does it specify the expected format (absolute/relative). It's a modest improvement over the bare schema, so a 3 is fair.

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 existing SimInTech project, with specific file extensions (.prt/.xprt). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_project and close_project. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, leaving some differentiation to the reader.

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 a behavioral note about closing the previous project, which hints at usage context, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use this to open existing projects, use create_project to make new ones'). The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it's adequate but not strong.

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