Close Shell Session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by naming the escalation policy (SIGTERM then SIGKILL), which tells the agent the close is forceful and that processes may be killed without cleanup. It omits irreversibility, behavior for an unknown or already-closed session_id, and whether it errors or no-ops.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key mechanism is in parentheses where it belongs. It is efficient rather than padded, though its brevity leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but this is an unannotated mutation tool whose one parameter is undocumented and whose failure semantics are unstated. For a destructive session-termination operation the definition is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single parameter session_id, so the description must compensate and does not — it never states what form a session identifier takes or where the agent obtains one (presumably from start_shell_session or list_shell_sessions). The only hint is the word 'session'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Terminate a PTY session'. The name plus description make it distinguishable from start_shell_session and list_shell_sessions by plain contrast, though the description never explicitly routes against those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of what happens to running processes or buffered output, and no stated alternative for reclaiming or inspecting a session before closing it (e.g. read_session_output). Usage is only implied by the verb 'Terminate'.

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