remote_session_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it also closes the 'remote shell/runspace,' which adds some detail, but it fails to indicate whether the action is destructive, irreversible, or what happens if the named session does not exist. This is a significant gap for a close/delete operation.

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 a single sentence that is direct and free of redundancy. It earns its place by conveying the action, target, and the fact that the remote shell/runspace is included, all in a concise format.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose but lacks context on side effects, error behavior, and when to use it versus alternatives. Since an output schema exists, return values do not need to be explained, but the absence of annotations leaves gaps in operational expectations.

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 contains only 'name' with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description clarifies that the parameter refers to a named session, but it does not specify the expected format or how the name should be obtained (e.g., from remote_session_list). It adds some meaning beyond the schema but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 and target: 'Close one named session and its remote shell/runspace.' The verb 'close' and the specific resource 'one named session' distinguish it from sibling tools like remote_session_close_all and remote_session_cleanup_idle, which are not mentioned here but are clearly different in scope.

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 implies usage for closing a specific session by name, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as close_all or cleanup_idle. No scenarios or exclusion criteria are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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