shutdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns {ok: true} and that the actual disconnect is client-side, implying it is not the closing mechanism. This is a notable behavioral trait, but it lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or error states. Adequate for a minimal tool, but gaps remain.

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 sentences with no wasted words. However, the first sentence could better capture the action rather than the return value. Still, it is efficiently structured for the minimal content.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, output schema exists), but the description omits critical context: what triggers the actual shutdown, whether it is safe to call multiple times, and how it relates to the connection lifecycle. Even with an output schema, the description fails to fully equip an agent to use it correctly.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description correctly adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools, as the description cannot add value beyond the schema.

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 focuses on return value ('Returns {ok: true}') rather than stating the primary action. 'Client-side disconnect is the actual close' hints at a non-destructive signal, but the core purpose (what the tool actually does) is ambiguous. A tool named 'shutdown' should clarify whether it initiates a shutdown or merely acknowledges a request.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., initialize, render_cancel). No prerequisites or context provided. The description fails to help an agent decide if this tool is appropriate for the current task.

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