term_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that a session is closed, leaving unspecified whether this kills the underlying process, invalidates the session_id, affects buffered output, or is idempotent. For a state-changing tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded, though its brevity is partly responsible for the missing behavioral detail penalized elsewhere.

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 one-parameter action, the description plus schema identify the input and the intended operation. However, the absence of annotations, output schema, and lifecycle context make it only minimally complete for an agent deciding when and how to call it.

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 fully documents the only parameter as 'Session id from term_open,' so the description does not need to repeat it. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already provides complete coverage.

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 names a precise action ('Close') and a clear resource ('a session'), so an agent can tell it is the counterpart to term_open. It is less explicit about how it differs from other terminal lifecycle tools, but the verb-resource pair is sufficient for basic distinction.

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 usage guidance is provided: it does not say to invoke this after term_open, whether it should precede other operations, or what conditions make closing appropriate. The lifecycle implication is present but left entirely to inference.

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