session_close_check

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is non-destructive, dry-run, and never returns a confirm token or terminates processes. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema, though it omits details like return format or error handling.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No superfluous content.

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 required parameters and a simple scope, the description covers the essential behavior (non-destructive, dry-run, no confirm token). However, it lacks return value details and examples, which would be helpful for completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning for the 'limit' or 'project_key' parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('run a compact non-destructive close-task check') and resource context. It differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing it's a non-destructive dry-run check that never returns a live confirm token or terminates processes.

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 implies usage for safe checks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like auto_cleanup_dryrun or managed_cleanup_dryrun. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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