cst_quit_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. It states that all open projects are closed and the process is released, but omits critical context for a destructive operation: whether unsaved changes are lost, whether a confirmation is required, and whether the action is irreversible.

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 that efficiently conveys the core action and scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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, destructive quit tool with no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it names the effects but leaves out important behavioral warnings such as data loss risk. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the lack of safety context for a destructive operation is a gap.

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 are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately avoids discussing nonexistent inputs.

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 ('Close') and resource ('every open project'), plus the additional effect of releasing the Design Environment process. This distinguishes it from siblings like cst_close_project_tool, which likely closes a single project, by emphasizing the global scope.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cst_close_project_tool or cst_save_project_tool. While the name 'quit' implies a final shutdown, there is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or when-not-to-use conditions.

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