shell_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently communicates a critical side effect: closing the shell also closes its managed process tree, which is substantive context beyond the schema. It does not address idempotency or whether the operation is reversible, but the core destructive behavior is clear.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then states the important side-effect scope. There is no wasted text or repetition of schema content.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it omits practical context such as the relationship to shell_open, how shell_close differs from shell_signal, and what happens when an invalid or already-closed shell_id is provided. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 shell_id, where it comes from, or how it should be obtained. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's property name and constraints.

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 a clear resource ('persistent shell') while also naming the scope of the side effect ('managed process tree'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as shell_open, shell_exec, and shell_signal, which have different actions.

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 guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives like shell_signal, nor does it mention prerequisites such as first opening a shell with shell_open. The usage context is only implied by the resource name.

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