m8811_disconnect

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint are all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the action and scope, but does not describe what happens if already disconnected, error behavior, or effects on other connections.

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 with no wasted words. It states the action and the unique scope efficiently.

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 disconnect tool with an output schema present, the description is minimally sufficient. It could mention reconnect requirements or distinguish itself from generic disconnect tools, but the tool's simplicity limits the 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 has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to clarify.

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 ('the M8811 serial connection'). The word 'only' explicitly differentiates it from sibling disconnect tools for other 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?

The description implies this tool is used to disconnect the M8811, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over generic disconnect_instrument or sibling device-specific disconnect tools. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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