Open or close the LASAL CLASS 2 IDE GUI. Close the GUI before running batch operations to avoid conflicts.
Open or close the LASAL CLASS 2 IDE GUI. Close before running batch operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | 'open' launches LASAL CLASS 2; 'close' kills it. | |
| lcp_path | No | Full path to the .lcp station file to open (open only). Omit to auto-detect from the selected project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the primary behavior (open/close) and hints at a side effect (interference with batch operations if left open). However, it does not detail potential consequences like unsaved data loss, process termination, or confirmation prompts, and there are no annotations to supplement this.
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, using only two sentences to convey purpose and a usage warning. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no unnecessary detail.
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?
The description is complete enough for the agent to know when and why to use the tool, especially with the batch operation warning. It does not mention return values or output, but since there is no output schema, this omission is acceptable.
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 main description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. The schema covers both 'action' and 'lcp_path' with clear descriptions, so the baseline is appropriate; no extra parameter guidance is provided.
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 purpose: to open or close the LASAL CLASS 2 IDE GUI. It uses a specific verb ('open or close') and names the resource exactly, differentiating it from sibling tools like manage_visudesigner.
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 provides direct guidance on when to use the tool (open/close the IDE) and includes a specific caution: 'Close before running batch operations.' This gives the agent a practical condition, though it does not explicitly compare with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.