Disconnect

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

This is unusually strong: it explicitly discloses that all session state is reset, that the client is zeroed, and importantly that the project previously persisted in a global variable. It warns that subsequent calls would use a dead ProjectId. This goes beyond what annotations (none) provide and clearly explains side effects.

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 concise, with the core purpose front-loaded. The additional sentence about session state adds crucial context without surplus. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The description is complete for a zero-parameter tool: it explains what it does and the behavioral implications. However, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be connected) or what happens after disconnection, but for a state-reset tool, the key side effects are covered. Output schema exists, so no return value explanation needed.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly notes there are no parameters and thus no further explanation is needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description fulfills that.

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 that the tool ends a session by closing the project and disconnecting from the COM server, which is clear in purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'close_project', though the broader scope (session vs just project) is implied.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'close_project' or 'connect'. The description implies it is for ending a session, but without context on trade-offs or prerequisites, an agent may not know when to choose it.

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