ssh_close

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: that it becomes a no-op when multiplexing is disabled. However, there are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't mention whether this closes any active running commands, what happens to in-flight operations, or side effects on other tools using the same master connection. Adequate but could be richer.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that conveys purpose, scope, and a critical edge case (no-op when multiplexing disabled). Zero wasted words.

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 single-parameter no-op-capable tool, the description is largely complete. It covers the action, scoping, and the edge case of disabled multiplexing. Minor gaps include not detailing side effects on connected sessions or what the response looks like, but given the tool's simplicity these are not critical omissions.

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 single 'target' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with format 'user@host[:port]' and notes it uses local SSH config and keys. The description adds the behavioral context of what the target refers to (the multiplexed master). With full schema coverage, baseline is 3 and the description's scoping adds minimal extra value, so 4 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the verb (close), resource (multiplexed SSH master connection), and target scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ssh_interactive_close by specifying it operates on the multiplexed master connection rather than an interactive session.

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 this tool is applicable (when multiplexing is enabled) and notes the no-op behavior when multiplexing is disabled (e.g., native Windows OpenSSH). It could be stronger by explicitly contrasting with ssh_interactive_close, but the behavioral note about no-op provides practical usage context.

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