disconnect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does at surface level. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether disconnection is reversible, what happens to active debugging sessions, if it requires specific connection states, or what the expected outcome is after invocation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information without any fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what 'disconnect' means operationally, what state changes occur, or how this interacts with sibling tools like 'connect' and 'get_connection_status', leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without unnecessary repetition of what's already in structured data.

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 clearly states the action ('Disconnect') and target ('from React DevTools backend'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'connect' or explain what disconnection entails versus other state-changing operations.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. While the name implies it's the inverse of 'connect', the description doesn't state this relationship, mention when disconnection is appropriate, or warn about consequences of using it.

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