close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a 'hard-close', implying forceful termination, and states the consequence (freeing the line). It does not mention side effects like discarding queued data, but for a zero-parameter tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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, short sentence with a clear front-loaded verb ('Hard-close') and no fluff. Every word contributes meaning.

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 with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It tells what the tool does and why, and the sibling context (open/send/read/peek/status) helps. It could mention any errors or irreversible nature, but the core is covered.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to describe parameters, and nothing about parameters is missing.

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 clearly states the action (hard-close), the target (the line), and the intended outcome (frees it for the next connection). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its siblings, especially 'open', by conveying a forceful termination rather than a graceful one.

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 implies usage: call this when you are finished with a line and want to release it. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it versus keeping the line open.

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