load_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the tool replaces the current project, but it omits critical warnings about potential data loss if unsaved changes exist. This is a significant gap for a destructive 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a parameter and return value note. Every sentence is purposeful and the main action is front-loaded.

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?

Given that the tool replaces the current project, the description should mention saving behavior or error handling. The return value is simply 'Success message', and there is no output schema to supplement. It is minimally adequate but lacks important context.

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 only specifies a string parameter with title 'File Path' and no description. The description adds meaning by specifying the expected file extensions (.opj or .opju) and path style (Windows or WSL), which compensates for the 0% schema 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 clearly states the tool opens an Origin project file and replaces the current project. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like new_project and save_project.

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 implies when to use this tool (to load an existing project) and that it replaces the current project, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like save_project before loading.

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