stop_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies termination and resource release but doesn't say whether in-flight state, unsaved projects, or open designs are lost, whether the call errors when no session exists, or whether it can be undone. 'Free resources' is the only behavioral hint.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, with no filler. It could only be improved by adding a usage clause rather than by trimming.

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 teardown tool this covers the basic action, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no statement about what state is destroyed or what happens on failure, an agent lacks enough to call it safely in a stateful Vivado workflow.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level value is possible or needed.

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 and resource: stops the Vivado TCL session and releases resources. That distinguishes it from siblings like start_session, session_status, and check_session_health, though it doesn't contrast with close_project or close_hw_manager, which could plausibly overlap.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as close_project, restart_simulation, or simply leaving a session running. The agent must infer that this is a teardown call to be used at the end of a workflow.

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