system_close

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are minimal. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: connections are rebuilt lazily, closing does not affect running containers, and omitting host closes every pooled client. It does not detail error behavior or side effects beyond that, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and lazy-rebuild behavior appear in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance, a critical scoping note, and a safety reassurance. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, the trigger for use, the alternative, the host-omission scope, and the non-effect on containers. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it or to predict its effect is missing.

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, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description still explains the host-omission semantics ('With host omitted every pooled client is closed'), which is valuable given the tool has no schema parameters to carry that meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Close and drop pooled Docker client connection(s)') and resource ('pooled Docker client connection(s)'), and explicitly distinguishes its behavior from system_reconnect. It also clarifies the lazy rebuild behavior, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says 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 notes the host-omission behavior differs from other tools, which is critical usage guidance.

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