clear-session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the destructive nature of the tool: it kills processes, sessions, and file locks. It also explains the purpose of that behavior in preventing/resolving common errors, though it could be more precise about what qualifies as 'stale' or whether active processes are ever affected.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the action and scope, and the second delivers a concrete operational mandate. Every word adds value, and it does not restate the tool name or waste space.

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 simple side-effectful tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, trigger conditions, and purpose well. It omits details about response/error behavior and what happens when there is nothing stale to clean, but those are minor for an agent deciding whether and when to invoke it.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three optional parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it earns the baseline score rather than higher.

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 begins with a specific action verb ('Kills') and clearly names the targets: stale terminal sessions, file locks, and background processes. It also scopes the tool to the MileHost container, which distinguishes it from sibling run, reboot, and file-edit tools.

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 gives an explicit operational rule: ALWAYS call this tool before starting, running, or restarting any bot or service, and ties it to concrete error states like 'Bot already running' and 409 Conflict. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the when-to-use guidance is very clear.

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