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 behavioral disclosure burden. It states the action but does not disclose side effects, such as whether unsaved changes are discarded, whether the session remains active, or whether the operation 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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded, though its brevity leaves out useful behavioral context.

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 tool with no annotations and a single optional parameter, the description leaves important context undisclosed, such as whether a project must be open, what happens to unsaved changes, or how this relates to session state. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but behavioral context remains incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain 'timeout_s'. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory as a timeout in seconds, but the description adds no meaning about its purpose, units confirmation, or default behavior.

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'), a specific resource ('current Vivado project'), and a scope ('current'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_project' and 'open_project' while being immediately actionable.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites such as an open/active project, nor does it distinguish itself from related workflow steps.

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