close_session

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Reap its process' usefully discloses that a backing process is terminated, which goes beyond the tool name, but it omits idempotency, behavior on an unknown/already-closed session, and whether termination is graceful or forced.

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?

One short sentence with the effect front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the definition leaves the session targeting (including the 'default' value) and failure behavior entirely unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter and it does not mention session_id at all. The schema's odd default of 'default' is left unexplained, so an agent gets no help understanding which session is targeted.

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') and resource ('a session'), plus a second effect ('reap its process'). No sibling in the list also closes a session, so the tool is distinguishable, but the description never names the complementary tools (list_sessions, launch_tui) to sharpen the contrast.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. That it is the teardown counterpart to launch_tui must be inferred from the name alone.

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