clasp_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'open' without revealing side effects such as opening a browser, requiring authentication, or modifying project state. It also fails to mention how the webapp and deploymentId parameters alter behavior.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core purpose, but it is also extremely terse and omits useful contextual details that could be conveyed without bloating the description.

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 three parameters and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It does not explain the different modes (e.g., opening a web app URL, specifying a deployment ID) or the role of rootDir. The user must rely solely on the schema to understand the tool's full capability, which is incomplete for a tool with this level of complexity.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (webapp, rootDir, deploymentId) including defaults and descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Open the project in the Apps Script editor'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the action is distinct from siblings like push/pull/deploy. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the parameter-driven variations (e.g., webapp, deployment ID) which could add further specificity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. For instance, it doesn't say whether the project must already exist or whether this is only for local projects. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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