Close the currently open CST project and release its resources to end a simulation session cleanly before opening another project.
Close the currently open CST project and release its resources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'release its resources' but does not specify side effects: e.g., whether unsaved changes are lost, behavior if no project is open, or if calling multiple times is safe. This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity.
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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the action. It is front-loaded, but could briefly mention prerequisites or consequences without being verbose.
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 no output schema or annotations, the description is the sole source. It covers the basic action but misses edge cases (e.g., error handling, state expectations like 'project must be open'). This is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use robustly.
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?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details.
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's action ('Close the currently open CST project') and its effect ('release its resources'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cst_open_project, cst_create_project, and cst_save_project by specifying the current project and resource release.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied from the purpose (close when done with project), but no exclusions or context such as 'call after saving' or 'do not call if no project is open'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.