power_shell_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the key behavior that the process is terminated, not just the session closed. However, it omits consequences like irreversibility, error handling for invalid sessions, or whether it is a graceful shutdown, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that is concise and without waste. It directly states the action and target, making it easy to parse.

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 close operation, the description is mostly complete. It states the action and the process termination, and the schema fills in the parameter. What is missing is mention of what happens on failure or whether the operation is safe to repeat, but these are minor for a straightforward close tool.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter, describing session_id as 'The session ID returned by power_shell_open'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: closing a PowerShell shell session and terminating the process. It is specific about the resource (PowerShell session) and the action (close/terminate), distinguishing it from sibling close tools for SSH, serial, or ADB.

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?

The description implies when to use: when you have a PowerShell session to close. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., ssh_shell_close, adb_shell_close) or provide exclusions, so the guidance is implied and not fully developed.

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