agenthop_bye

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds valuable handshake semantics beyond the annotations: the other side responds with a goodbye before both sides finish, which tells the agent this is an interactive two-step termination rather than a fire-and-forget call.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action ('End the conversation') front-loaded ahead of the optional modification and the handshake behavior.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the action, the optional input, and the termination handshake. It could mention whether the call blocks until the other side responds, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'text' parameter is documented as 'A parting line' in the schema. The description's 'optionally with a parting line' confirms optionality but adds no format, length, or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('End the conversation') with a clear scope that cannot be confused with siblings like agenthop_say or agenthop_wait. An agent can immediately tell this terminates the session rather than sending a message.

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 description — call it when you want to end the conversation — but no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., use agenthop_say for a final message without ending) is provided. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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