pi_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the termination effect, registry removal, and the persistence of session files, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the tool name. However, it does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, or error conditions.

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 two short sentences that immediately state the primary action and a key caveat. Every word adds information and there is no padding or repetition of the tool name.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with a single parameter and no output schema, but the description lacks guidance on when to use it versus siblings like pi_abort. It covers the main behavioral aspect (session files persist) but omits potential side effects or the tool's return 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention 'taskId' at all. While it is inferable that the parameter identifies which task to close, the description offers no explicit clarification of the parameter's format, meaning, or constraints, leaving the agent to guess.

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 specifies the action ('Terminate'), the resource ('the pi process'), and the additional effect ('remove the task from the registry'), which distinguishes it from generic close/stop tools. The note that 'Session files stay on disk' further clarifies its scope.

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 like pi_abort or pi_respond. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios that would make this tool preferable.

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