system_close

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the sparse annotations: lazy rebuild on next use, the difference from system_reconnect, and that closing connections does not affect running containers. It stops short of explaining idempotence (what happens if already closed) or required permissions, but the provided context is valuable for an agent.

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, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: action, usage, alternative, special case, side effect, and return value. No filler or wordiness is present.

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, the description covers most important aspects: purpose, usage, side effects, and return value. However, the unsupported `host` parameter confuses the context and the tool's actual signature, leaving an agent uncertain whether parameters should be passed. This undermines completeness despite the otherwise thorough explanation.

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 declares zero parameters with 100% coverage, yet the description repeatedly references a `host` parameter and its omitted behavior. This introduces a parameter that does not exist in the schema, actively misleading an agent. The description adds no correct parameter semantics beyond the empty schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Close and drop pooled Docker client connection(s)". It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting the lazy rebuild behavior and explicitly contrasting with system_reconnect.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: "Use this to force a stale or errored connection to be discarded." It also names an alternative: "Prefer `system_reconnect` when you want to immediately re-establish the connection..." and explains the host omission nuance, offering clear decision-making context.

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