open_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds only that the source is disk, without saying whether the currently open project is replaced, whether unsaved changes are lost, or whether the path must be a .hrox file — meaningful gaps for a state-changing operation.

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 perhaps over-terse given the operation's side effects, but nothing in it is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and only one parameter is involved. However, for a mutation-adjacent tool that swaps the active project, the description omits what happens to existing project state and how failures are surfaced.

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% and the single 'path' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden. It does add the implicit constraint that the path must point to a .hrox file on disk, but gives no format details such as absolute vs relative paths or extension handling.

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 (.hrox project from disk), which is clearly distinct from new_project, save_project and close_project in intent. It does not explicitly contrast with these siblings, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of new_project, list_projects or get_project, and no prerequisites such as whether the file must exist or whether an open project must be closed first.

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