disconnect_instrument

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

The description adds valuable scope context ('all active... discovery VISA sessions') beyond what annotations provide. Annotations do not contradict the description; closing sessions is correctly marked as non-destructive. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like invalidated handles, which would have made it a 5.

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 wasted words. It clearly states the action and the exact scope without 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It specifies exactly what resources are affected (all active instrument and discovery VISA sessions), which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameter details. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't miss anything required.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Close' and clearly identifies the resource: 'all active instrument and discovery VISA sessions.' This distinguishes it from sibling disconnect tools that target single instruments.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternative instrument-specific disconnect tools. The 'all active' phrasing implies a global cleanup use case, but the description doesn't state it explicitly.

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