shell_close

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., what happens to the session, any cleanup, whether it's destructive). The description only states the action without mentioning side effects or safety considerations. For a session-closing tool, this is insufficient.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that convey the core purpose and key usage guidance without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description is largely complete. It identifies the tool's domain (persistent shell sessions) and specifies constraints on parameter usage. A minor gap is the lack of mention of error handling or what happens if the session does not exist, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the recommendation for 'alias' over 'host' and the condition for omitting parameters (single connection). This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: closing a persistent shell session. It uses specific terms ('关闭持久化 shell 会话') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' (open), 'disconnect' (likely close all), and 'exec' (execute commands). The verb-resource pair is precise.

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 practical guidance: use 'alias' (recommended) or 'host' to specify the target server, and omitting parameters when there is a single active connection. While it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives, the parameter usage advice is clear and helpful.

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