close_interface

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 does disclose the side effect (releasing an OS handle), which is genuinely useful. It does not cover idempotency, error behavior for an unknown/stale session id, or what happens to dependent device connections — significant gaps for a mutation-style teardown with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the action and its effect front-loaded. Nothing is buried or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the effect of closing is stated. But with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description should say more about failure modes and session lifecycle to be complete for a teardown operation.

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 single required parameter session_id has no documentation anywhere. The description reuses the word 'session', giving a loose semantic tie, but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the identifier an agent must supply.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Close a previously opened interface session') and adds the concrete effect ('release its operating-system handle'). The word 'previously' implicitly pairs it with the open_interface sibling, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation requires inference.

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?

'Previously opened' implies the precondition that a session must exist, and the sibling open_interface is the obvious counterpart. However, the description never names the alternative, states what to do if no session exists, or warns about closing sessions still in use.

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