force_cleanup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the two-step process (robust logoff, then operator instruction) and states the output ('Returns a single-line status'). It does not explicitly warn about side effects or risks, but the destructive nature is implied and the steps are transparent enough.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, uses a clear numbered step structure, and each sentence contributes meaning (purpose, condition, steps, output). It is concise without being terse, and every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool, an output schema (if present) would handle return details, and the description already mentions the return format. It covers when to use, the process, and expected output. Combined with the sibling context, an agent has all information needed to select and invoke the tool correctly. No gaps are evident.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description references a 'configured userid' but that is a config context, not a parameter, so no parameter-specific semantics are needed. The description adds no import because there are no parameters to explain.

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 opening line 'Force-reset the host-side session for the configured userid' names a specific verb (force-reset) and resource (host-side session) and ties it to a specific scenario ('holding the userid as IN USE'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like reconnect or disconnect.

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 states when to use: 'Use when a prior dirty disconnect (or external session) is holding the userid as "IN USE" and blocking new logons.' This is a precise trigger condition, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use; the condition is specific enough to route correctly.

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