fm_logout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. '終了します' (ends) implies a destructive/mutative operation, but the description doesn't clarify what happens after logout (session invalidation, cleanup), whether authentication is required to call it, or what the expected outcome is. For a session management tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple logout operation and front-loads the essential information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. For a session management tool, it should ideally mention what happens post-logout, whether this affects other operations, or what confirmation/response to expect. The description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses on the tool's action rather than parameter details, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 '現在のセッションを終了します。' (Ends the current session) clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('終了します' - ends/terminates) and resource ('セッション' - session). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fm_login and fm_validate_session which handle session initiation and validation rather than termination. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what type of session (FileMaker session) or system context.

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 context - to end a current session - but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites (like requiring an active session first) or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer usage from the purpose statement alone.

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