close

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the action's effect (closing a cursor and freeing a connection) and the special case of closing all cursors when no token is given. However, it does not mention idempotency, error handling for invalid or already-closed cursors, or any side effects on the connection. For a simple close operation, this is a moderate gap.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Close an open cursor') and then conditions the behavior on the token. Every word adds value—there is no fluff, and the sentence is easily parseable.

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 close operation with an output schema present, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain where cursors come from (e.g., that they are likely returned by sibling tools like query or fetch) or whether closing is optional/required. An agent may need to infer that closing is a resource-management step after using a cursor. Given the simplicity, this is a moderate gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain the 'cursor' parameter. It only hints at it via 'when no token is given,' but does not clarify what a token is, how it is obtained, or its format. The schema itself defines the parameter as an optional string or null, but without semantic context the agent may not know how to supply a valid value. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema coverage.

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 ('Close') and identifies a concrete resource ('open cursor'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling data-exploration tools (query, fetch, describe, etc.) that are about reading or inspecting data. The purpose is unambiguous: close a cursor to free its connection.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to 'free its connection early,' implying you call it after you are done with a cursor. It also specifies the behavior for the optional token ('all cursors when no token is given'). While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer the use case, and no exclusions are needed given the tool's focused role.

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