grok_session_close

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses key behaviors: it closes the worker but preserves session mapping for later recovery. However, it omits details on idempotency, error conditions (e.g., calling on non-idle session), and synchronization behavior, leaving notable gaps.

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 (single sentence) but lacks structure; it front-loads the condition but omits critical parameter information, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for correct usage. The missing parameter semantics and lack of behavioral detail leave the agent underinformed for this moderate-complexity tool.

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% and the description provides no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (branch, project_root, codex_task_id, working_directory). The agent receives no guidance on how to populate these fields, making tool invocation guesswork.

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 tool closes the worker process of an idle Grok session while retaining session mapping for potential recovery. This purpose is distinct from sibling tools like grok_session_ensure or grok_task_start, though it could be more explicit about differentiation.

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 specifies when to call (session idle, no longer needs background processes), providing basic usage guidance. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives among siblings, and does not clarify when not to use it (e.g., for permanent termination).

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