Close Windows Telnet session

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

Annotations already signal destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds concrete behavioral detail: graceful mode performs CTRL+] then quit, and force mode terminates the process if needed. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide and helps the agent anticipate side effects and failure fallbacks.

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 tight sentences, no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded and the two modes are summarized efficiently. Every clause contributes information.

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 two-parameter close operation with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the key behavioral choice via force and relies on the destructive annotation for safety. The only notable gap is that 'sessionId' semantics are not explicitly connected to the close action, but this is relatively minor given the schema and sibling context.

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 compensate. It explains the 'force' boolean semantics via graceful vs force mode, which adds real value. However, it does not explicitly describe 'sessionId' beyond the schema's type/pattern, leaving its role to be inferred from the tool name and context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Closes the visible Telnet session.' It is distinct from sibling tools (read, send, start, list) and clarifies two execution modes. The term 'visible' adds useful scoping about which session is affected.

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 when to use the tool (to end a telnet session) and even gives guidance on choosing graceful vs force mode. However, it does not explicitly compare against any sibling tools or mention when not to use it. The mode explanation provides usable context but stops short of full routing guidance.

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