close_mcp_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool closes all active MCP connections and adds the important reassurance that connections are re-established on next use, indicating the action is reversible and safe. This goes beyond a bare description and effectively communicates the tool's side effects.

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 three short sentences, with the primary action stated first. The second sentence gives usage guidance and the third explains the recovery behavior. There is no redundant information, and every sentence contributes meaningful value.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations), the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the key behavior that connections are re-established, which addresses the main concerns an agent might have. The presence of an output schema means return value details are not required here.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and the schema description coverage is 100% by default. Per the rubric, a baseline score of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools, and no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 states 'Close all active MCP connections' with a clear verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. This is distinct from the sibling tools which focus on execution, listing, and searching, so there is no ambiguity.

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 advises using the tool 'to clean up resources when done with MCP tools', providing a clear temporal context. It also notes connections will be re-established on next use, which helps the agent understand that this is a safe, non-permanent cleanup action. However, it does not explicitly mention any scenarios where the tool should not be used, though such exclusions are less critical for a cleanup utility.

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