close_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it reveals that close is conditional, explains that closing a test-owned session would terminate running execution, and clarifies that attachment only forgets the session while the session continues to live. This is non-obvious, high-value behavioral context.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler: main action is front-loaded, then the condition, then the rationale/alternative. Every sentence 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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description covers the important context: what is closed, under what condition, and why. It does not explicitly state the failure/no-op behavior when the condition is false, but that is a minor gap given the output schema and low complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add; the 4 baseline applies. The description's session-ownership discussion further clarifies the implicit resource being acted on.

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 first sentence states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Ferme la session' (closes the session), and adds a decisive ownership qualifier ('uniquement si ce serveur l'a créée') that distinguishes this lifecycle operation from merely forgetting a session. It is immediately clear what the tool does and what it is not for.

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 gives an explicit use condition (only for server-created sessions) and a clear counter-case (test-opened sessions must not be closed because it would cut execution). It refers to the alternative 'rattachement' conceptually, but does not name the sibling tool (connect_to_session), so the guidance is not fully explicit.

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