open_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers little: it doesn't say whether an active session is required, what happens if a project is already open, whether it's a state-mutating operation, or what is returned. Only the file-type constraint is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a function of how little it says rather than of tight editing.

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 a fully documented schema this is close to sufficient, and there is no output schema to explain. However, the absence of annotations means session prerequisites and failure behavior go unaddressed, leaving a real 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already has a description ('Path to .xpr project file'), so the description's restatement of the .xpr file type adds little. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (Open) and resource (existing Vivado project/.xpr file), which is enough to distinguish it from create_project and close_project. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the word 'existing' implicitly carves out the create case.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'existing' hints that this is not for creating projects, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus create_project/get_project_info, nor any prerequisite such as needing an active session first (despite start_session being a sibling).

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