Rocky Close Project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure and does not meet it. It never states whether unsaved changes are discarded, whether closing releases a simulation license, or whether the call errors when nothing is open — all critical for an irreversible 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terse phrasing leaves no room for a side-effect warning that would genuinely earn its place.

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 output schema covers return values, and the tool is simple with no parameters. However, for a state-changing close operation with zero annotation coverage, the description omits the one thing an agent most needs to know: whether calling it risks losing unsaved work.

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. The baseline for a 0-param 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+resource (close the open Rocky project), which is distinguishable from siblings like rocky_open_project, rocky_create_project, and rocky_save_project. It does not clarify what happens to unsaved state, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 it, no mention of whether the project should be saved first, and no statement about what happens if no project is open. The agent must infer the workflow from sibling names.

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