reopen_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core state change (closed to open) but says nothing about authentication requirements, side effects, error behavior when the project is already open, idempotency, or the response format.

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 entire description is a single efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it sacrifices detail that other dimensions require.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 undocumented required parameters, a five-word description is insufficient. An agent cannot confidently determine parameter semantics, success/error behavior, or how this tool fits among the sibling project-management tools.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for owner, repo, or project_id beyond their names. The names are conventional, but there is no disambiguation of what project_id refers to (e.g., a repo project vs. a milestone) or any format constraints, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 gives a specific verb (reopen) and resource (project), and adds the precondition 'closed', which helps distinguish it from siblings like close_project and archive_project. However, it is close to a restatement of the name with only a marginal addition, so it falls just short of a top score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'closed' implies a precondition, but the description does not name sibling tools, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose between reopen_project, close_project, and archive_project.

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