disconnect

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It merely states the action without disclosing side effects such as stopping sensor streaming, releasing resources, or whether disconnection is safe to call repeatedly, which is essential for a connection-management operation.

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, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately minimal for a tool with no parameters and a straightforward purpose.

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 tool, the description is very sparse. Although an output schema exists, the description lacks critical behavioral context such as what happens to active operations or whether the connection is closed permanently. It does not mention related tools like connect or get_connection_status, leaving the overall workflow incomplete.

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 input schema is empty with no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4; the description adds no parameter meaning, but none is needed.

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 'Disconnect from RVR.' is a clear imperative verb + resource, indicating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools, as no other tool explicitly disconnects, though it is terse and doesn't elaborate on the scope or meaning of disconnection.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop or connect. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must be connected) or closing statements, leaving the agent to infer suitable conditions from the name alone.

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