close_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions the key behavior of releasing the session from the runtime and the context that it is no longer needed. However, it does not discuss reversibility, side effects, or failure modes, leaving gaps.

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 two sentences, with the action stated first and a concrete use case following. Every word serves a purpose; there is no wasted text or 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?

The description covers the core action and a typical use case, which is adequate for a one-parameter tool. However, without annotations or an output schema, it does not address return values, error handling, or preconditions, so it is 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?

The single parameter session_id is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional detail about the parameter, such as format or constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action 'Close a session' and the effect 'releasing it from the runtime.' It also provides a typical use case after merge_branch, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge_branch and create_branch.

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?

It explicitly describes when to use the tool: after merge_branch reports success, with the rationale that the source branch has been integrated and no longer needs to stay open. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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