terminal_close

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the concrete behavior: it closes the terminal session and stops its processes. This clarifies exactly what destructive effect will occur, going beyond the bare annotation flags.

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 short, front-loaded with the main behavior, and includes a simple Args/Returns structure. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though the Args line is a bit redundant with the schema. Overall it is clean and scannable.

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 terminal-closing tool, the description covers the essential behavior and return value, while annotations and schema fill in destructiveness, idempotency, and parameter meaning. It does not explain when to prefer this over terminal_ctrl_c or terminal_wait, but that gap is more of a usage-guideline issue than a completeness issue.

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 description's Args section only restates the parameter name 'terminal_id' without adding meaning. Although the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage, the nested schema property does include a description ('A bezarando terminal azonositoja'), giving the agent enough information. The description itself adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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: closing a terminal session and stopping its processes. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like terminal_open, terminal_read, and terminal_write. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool, so it falls short of the top score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as terminal_ctrl_c or terminal_wait. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the selection context entirely to inference.

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