new_project

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does hint at a side effect beyond creation ('open', i.e., the project becomes active), but says nothing about overwrite behavior if the path exists, failure modes, or what happens to the currently open project.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with no filler. Nothing is wasted even though the content is thin.

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 one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this is close to adequate. However, with no annotations and a mutating create operation, the missing notes on overwrite, activation of the new project, and error conditions leave a real gap.

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% and the schema already documents 'path' as an absolute path for the new .prproj file. The description adds no extra parameter detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create and open a new empty project'), which is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling open_project (existing file) or create_bin, leaving that distinction implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'new' means no existing file, opposed to open_project. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite stated (e.g., host application must be running), and no exclusion rules.

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