agenthop_bye

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the other side will return the farewell and then both sides end, which is non-obvious protocol context. However, it does not cover failure modes, timeouts, blocking behavior, or permission requirements.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and then adds the interaction protocol, making it easy to scan.

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 one-parameter tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key end-of-conversation protocol. It does not address edge cases or alternatives, but those are minor relative to the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter is an optional farewell text. The description restates that the text is optional and is a farewell, matching what the schema already provides without adding syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource: ending a conversation, with an optional farewell message. It also describes the expected handshake behavior, which makes the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as agenthop_say or agenthop_wait, so it stops short of a 5.

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: call this when you want to end the conversation, optionally with a farewell. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative among the sibling communication tools. This is 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.