jumpserver_close

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description still adds real value by naming the released resources and the resulting DISCONNECTED state, giving the agent a clear post-condition beyond the annotations.

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 the verb and the cleanup effects stated immediately. No filler or redundancy.

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 no-arg lifecycle tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and its resulting state, which is what an agent needs. It omits edge-case behavior (what happens when no session is active) and any auth/permission requirement, leaving a small gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey; the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb (close) and resource (JumpServer session) and enumerates exactly what is torn down (PTY, SSH channel, buffers, timers). It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling lifecycle tools such as jumpserver_leave or jumpserver_interrupt, whose boundaries with 'close' are left for the agent to infer.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must a session be active first?), and no routing to alternatives like jumpserver_leave or jumpserver_interrupt. The agent must guess which teardown tool applies.

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