open_project

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals the operation is not read-only. The description adds specific behavioral context by explaining how relative paths resolve against the working directory and that the result returns the resolved absolute path, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and uses a second sentence to clarify path behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no 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 tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the core behavior, path resolution, and the output. It doesn't address side effects like replacing the current project, but the destructiveHint annotation covers the general safety profile, making this description adequate for effective use.

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 single parameter 'filename' is only minimally described in the schema (type string, minLength 1). The description thoroughly explains the semantics: absolute path used as-is, bare filename resolves against working directory, and the result reports the resolved path. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource statement ('Open a PLAXIS project') and elaborates on path resolution, making the tool's function unambiguous. It stands apart from siblings like new_project, close_project, and recover_project because 'open' is clearly distinct in this context.

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 provides operational details about how absolute vs relative paths are handled, which guides the user on correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over new_project or recover_project, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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