docker_close

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a no-op, always succeeds, and explains why (no persistent connection). This is completely transparent about the lack of side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core fact ('No-op for Docker'), and every word contributes to understanding. No filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-op tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and success guarantee. There is no missing information needed to invoke 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?

The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. It reinforces that the operation is a no-op, which is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool is a 'No-op for Docker' and explains why ('the transport does not keep a persistent connection'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like docker_interactive_close, which imply a different closing mechanism.

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 provides clear context: because the transport is connectionless, this call is a no-op. It implies usage for compatibility or when a close is expected, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like docker_interactive_close. Still, the guidance is sufficient for a trivial tool.

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