close_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about whether closing is irreversible, whether in-flight commands or screen state are lost, what happens if no session exists, or whether authentication is required—all material for a teardown 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and target come first. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the behavioral gaps noted elsewhere rather than being a structural flaw.

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 tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the basics are covered. However, as a session-terminating operation with no annotations, it should say at least whether repeated calls error or whether the close is destructive to session state.

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 single 'device' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the accepted forms (name, substring, or UUID) and a pointer to list_devices. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('the remote shell session to a device'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the read/execute siblings (read_screen, run_command, send_keys). It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with one, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

There is no guidance on when to close versus leaving a session open, no prerequisites, and no mention of what conditions select this tool over the others. The agent must infer that this is the teardown counterpart to the command-execution siblings.

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