Closes a RAD debugging session and detaches or resumes attached applications by default; set terminate_debuggee to true to explicitly terminate attached processes.
Close RAD and detach/resume applications by default. terminate_debuggee=true explicitly terminates attached processes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | ||
| terminate_debuggee | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully clarifies that the default is the non-destructive detach/resume path while termination only happens on an explicit flag — context the annotation alone does not convey. It still omits whether closing is reversible and what happens to session state afterward.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the default behavior and the flag semantics; every clause carries information. The unexplained acronym "RAD" is the only mild bloat/inaccessibility.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the key behavioral fork for a destructive close. It is nearly complete, lacking only how to source session_id and what state remains after closing.
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%, so the description must carry semantics; it does explain terminate_debuggee (terminates attached processes, default false), which is the non-obvious parameter. However, session_id is left completely unexplained — no mention of where to obtain it or its format — so compensation is only partial.
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: closing the RAD session, and adds the default detach/resume behavior. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like rad_launch or rad_attach, though it never names them explicitly.
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 two sentences give an implicit decision rule for the terminate_debuggee flag (default detach vs. explicit termination), but there is no guidance on when to close a session at all, or what prerequisites/existing state are needed before calling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.