remote_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool closes a cached session and that the next call reopens a fresh one. It mentions idempotency implicitly but lacks detail on side effects like process termination. Still, it provides useful behavioral context.

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 with three sentences: one for action, one for context, one for usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids unnecessary words.

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 (one parameter, no output schema needed? context says output schema exists but not shown), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and behavior. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be described.

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 sole parameter 'host' has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond its name. The description does not specify expected format, validation, or examples for the host value.

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 verb 'close' and the resource 'cached persistent bash session for <host>'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (local_exec, policy_check, remote_job) by focusing on session lifecycle management.

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 explicitly says 'Rarely needed' and specifies the condition for use: 'to reset a session whose state has gotten dirty'. It also explains that the session is auto-managed by remote_shell, guiding when not to use.

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