Rocky Open Project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Opening a project is a state-mutating operation, yet the description says nothing about whether it replaces the current project, what happens if the path is invalid or missing, or what permissions are needed. The only signal is the output schema, which the agent would have to inspect.

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?

One short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though efficiency here shades into under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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 state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, the description omits prerequisites, side effects on the current session, and error conditions. The presence of an output schema removes only the need to explain return values; everything else an agent needs to invoke this safely is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%: the single 'path' parameter is already documented as pointing to a '.rocky' project file. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb ('Open') plus a specific resource ('existing Rocky project file') makes the action unmistakable, and 'existing' distinguishes it from the sibling rocky_create_project. It does not, however, differentiate itself from rocky_save_project or rocky_close_project, which share the same project-file domain.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus rocky_create_project, nor any guidance on prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must be closed first, whether state is replaced). 'Existing' hints at the condition, but the agent is left to infer everything else.

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