Releases the CODE V session created by this service and returns its post-release status.
释放本服务创建的 CODE V 会话，并返回释放后的状态。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | No | ||
| ready | No | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| backend | Yes | ||
| details | No | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| lens_open | No | ||
| capabilities | No | ||
| current_lens | No | ||
| session_open | No | ||
| codev_version | No | ||
| service_version | Yes | ||
| working_directory | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the postcondition (returns the released session's status), but omits whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if no session exists, and whether release is irreversible.
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 compact sentence covering both the action and its postcondition, with the action front-loaded. The clause about returning the post-release status is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing is wasted.
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 parameterless cleanup call with an output schema covering the return value, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is lifecycle/prerequisite context rather than anything structural.
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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully described, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool 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 (release/close) and resource (the CODE V session), and scopes it to the session 'created by this service'. Among the lens-oriented siblings there is no competing session-lifecycle tool, so the purpose is unambiguous without further differentiation.
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 says what the tool does but gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance. It does not state prerequisites (an open session), whether it is safe to call when none exists, or how it relates to any session-opening flow, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.