gauge_disconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the action (disconnect), the consequence (end trace session), and the return value (trace summary metrics). This goes beyond a mere verb-phrase restatement, though it does not mention edge cases like invalid session IDs or whether the action is irreversible.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action, followed by the key return behavior. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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 relatively simple tool with fully described parameters, the description is appropriately complete: it states the connection-teardown action, session termination, and return value. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the explicit mention of a trace summary, though more detail about return structure or failure behavior would push it to a 5.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (session_id and task_success), and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('切断', disconnect) and resource ('対象MCPサーバー', target MCP server) and clarifies it ends the trace session and returns a trace summary. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gauge_connect (which establishes a connection) and gauge_report (which likely reports data).

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 usage after a connection has been established (via gauge_connect) by mentioning disconnection and trace session termination, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but the usage guidance is only implied.

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