system_close

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description explains that closing clients does not affect running containers and that connections are rebuilt lazily, adding useful behavioral context. However, it could further clarify if it's synchronous or has side effects on other connections.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, comparison, and a specific note about behavior. Every sentence is relevant and no filler.

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 zero parameters and an output schema (returning bool), the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, how it differs from alternatives, and its non-destructive nature. It is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

No parameters in input schema, so baseline is 4. However, the description mentions a 'host' parameter (e.g., 'with host omitted') that is not present in the schema, causing potential confusion. While the description adds meaning by explaining behavior, this inconsistency with the schema lowers the 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 it closes and drops pooled Docker client connections, rebuilding lazily on next use. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool system_reconnect by explaining the difference in reconnection strategy.

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 advises when to use (force stale/errored connection) and when to prefer system_reconnect (immediate re-establishment), providing clear usage context and alternatives.

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