system_close

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: lazy rebuild on next use, immediate versus lazy reconnection, the host-omission behavior, the fact that closing clients does not affect containers, and the return type. The annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly.

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 four sentences, all of which add value: the core action, the use case, the alternative, the host semantics, and the return type. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words.

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 0-parameter tool with an output schema (returns bool), the description covers purpose, usage guidance, behavioral semantics, and return value comprehensively. However, the misplaced mention of a `host` parameter (not in the schema) introduces an inconsistency that prevents a perfect completeness score.

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 properties, yet the description repeatedly refers to a 'host' parameter ('With `host` omitted...'). This creates a direct mismatch with the schema, potentially misleading the agent into thinking a host parameter exists. While the prose is informative, it fails to align with the actual parameter schema, so it cannot earn a higher score.

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 tool's function: 'Close and drop pooled Docker client connection(s); each is rebuilt lazily on next use.' This specifies a verb, a resource, and a consequence. It also distinguishes itself from sibling `system_reconnect` by contrasting lazy rebuild with immediate re-establishment.

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 tells when to use this tool ('force a stale or errored connection to be discarded') and when to prefer the alternative ('Prefer `system_reconnect` when you want to immediately re-establish the connection'). It also clarifies a non-obvious semantic: omitting `host` closes every pooled client, unlike other tools.

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