shell_close

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that the VM remains locked after closing, which is not conveyed by the idempotentHint or destructiveHint flags. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a critical lock consideration. No filler or redundant 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 simple close operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, and the subsequent required action. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, making this complete enough for an agent.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the single parameter, and the tool description does not explain where session_id comes from or its format. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 uses a specific verb ('release') and a specific resource ('broker resources for a completed interactive shell session'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like shell_terminate. It also conveys the session lifecycle context without ambiguity.

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 clearly states when to use it (for a completed session) and provides an important follow-up instruction ('call vm_unlock when finished'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the use case is well-defined.

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