fgui_use_project

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions selecting for the session but does not explain side effects (e.g., overriding previous selection), validation behavior, or error handling. This is a state-changing operation, yet the description remains surface-level.

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 that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is informative, with no filler or 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 simple one-parameter setter tool, the description is minimal but acceptable. It covers the core purpose and parameter semantics, but lacks usage context (when to call) and behavioral details. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the lack of guidelines makes it incomplete.

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 schema has one parameter (project_path) with no description (0% coverage). The tool description compensates by explaining the accepted path types (.fairy file, project directory, or repository directory), adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify path format (relative vs. absolute) or other constraints.

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 function: selecting a .fairy file, FairyGUI project directory, or repository directory for the current MCP session. It uses a specific verb ('select') and distinguishes from siblings like fgui_get_project, which likely retrieves the current selection rather than setting it.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering (e.g., use before other operations), or exclusions. The context implies it is a setup step, but the description never says that explicitly.

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