shutdown_session

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but omits the most critical consequence: with save defaulting to false, unsaved changes may be lost. It also does not disclose whether the session can be resumed after 'release' or what side effects propagating. For a session-terminating operation this is a significant 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The primary action ('Close all tracked documents') comes first and the session resource is named second. Nothing needs to be cut.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and two opaque parameters, the description is incomplete for a state-changing session teardown. An agent cannot determine data-loss risk, how close_mode behaves, what success looks like, or whether the session is reusable, leaving critical operational uncertainty.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain either parameter. 'save' can be weakly inferred to mean persisting documents before shutdown, but 'close_mode' (an unexplained integer) has no hint about its meaning or allowed values. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate and does not.

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 uses specific verbs and a specific resource: 'Close all tracked documents and release the KOMPAS session.' The scope ('all tracked documents' + session release) clearly differentiates it from close_document, which handles a single document, and from save_* tools, which persist rather than terminate.

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 intended context (end-of-session teardown, not single-document closing) is implied by 'all tracked documents' and 'release the session,' but no alternatives are named and there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer the distinction from close_document and open_document siblings.

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