rsap_close_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does provide a key behavioral trait beyond the tool name: 'Robot itself stays open'. This clarifies that the operation does not terminate the application. However, it does not mention the potential loss of unsaved changes, which is a notable omission for a close operation.

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, front-loaded sentence. Every word adds value—the main action and the clarifying parenthetical—with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior but omits an important consequence: unsaved changes may be lost when closing the project. This is a significant gap for an AI agent deciding whether to call this tool, especially given the presence of a save_project sibling. The clarification about Robot staying open is helpful but does not fully address the risk.

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 has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the input schema is empty. Nothing is missing here.

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 action ('Close') and the target ('current project'), and the parenthetical 'Robot itself stays open' clarifies the scope, distinguishing it from closing the application entirely. This is a specific verb+resource that differentiates the tool from sibling project operations like open, save, or new.

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 implies a context—closing the active project while keeping the application running—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_project or open_project. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., saving before closing) or exclusions (e.g., not for exiting Robot).

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