jumpserver_leave

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real value by specifying the at-most-once exit send and the exact success condition (menu re-detected), which an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded, no redundant restatement of the name. Every clause earns its place by adding action, mechanism, or success criteria.

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, the description carries the burden and does state how success is determined. It falls short only on failure/precondition behavior (e.g., what is reported when no asset is currently entered).

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 the baseline of 4 applies — there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the implicit requirement of being inside an entered asset.

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+resource: leaving the currently entered asset and returning to the JumpServer menu. The enter/leave pairing makes it distinguishable from siblings like jumpserver_connect and jumpserver_close, but those alternatives are not named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'the currently entered asset' — it presumes a prior jumpserver_enter — but it never states when to prefer this over jumpserver_close or jumpserver_connect, nor what happens if no asset is entered.

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