project_close

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it reveals the refusal behavior for dirty projects and the underlying rationale. It omits minor edge behaviors like what happens when no project is open, but the primary safety-critical behavior is transparently disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical caveat and the remedy. Every clause earns 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it safely: what it does, when it fails, what to do first, and why. The only gap is unspecified success/error return behavior, which is minor given the structured context is minimal.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is nothing for the schema to document and nothing for the description to compensate for; the description's behavioral context is all that is 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 ('Close') and resource ('the current project') in the opening sentence. Among siblings like project_new, project_open, and project_save_as, the action is unambiguous and distinct.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (project_save_as) and the exact condition that requires it (unsaved changes). It also explains why the tool cannot proceed on a dirty project — an interactive dialog that isn't safe over MCP — leaving no inference to the agent.

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