smb_disconnect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the underlying SCPI command (:SAVe:SMB:DISConnect), which is mildly useful for traceability, but says nothing about side effects, whether an active connection is required, or what happens to in-flight operations.

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?

A single short sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted words; the SCPI reference is appended compactly rather than padding the text.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, output schema present), so return-value explanation is unnecessary. Still, with no annotations the description leaves behavioral questions unanswered — prerequisites and post-disconnect state — making it only minimally complete.

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 input schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Disconnect the SMB share', which is unambiguous and clearly distinguished from siblings like smb_connect, configure_smb, and get_smb_status. It stops short of a 5 only because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against those alternatives.

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 call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite such as requiring an active connection first. The use case is only inferable from the tool name and the presence of smb_connect in the sibling list.

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