rtt_disconnect

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., releasing resources, affecting other RTT operations) or confirmation of success. With no annotations provided, this minimal description fails to convey what the tool actually does beyond its label.

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, short sentence with no extraneous content. It is as concise as possible for this simple operation.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description still lacks completeness. It does not mention that a connection must exist before disconnecting, nor does it describe what happens to the connection state or the tool's effect on other RTT operations. The description is too minimal to be fully informative.

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 input schema has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Since there are no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 'Disconnect from RTT' is a tautology that simply restates the tool name 'rtt_disconnect'. It does not add any specific verb or resource differentiation beyond what the name already conveys.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rtt_connect, rtt_clear). There is no mention of prerequisites or expected sequencing, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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