ssh_shell_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'close interactive session' but does not reveal what happens to the remote process, whether it blocks, if it is safe to call multiple times, or what errors could be raised. The side effects and semantics of closing are opaque.

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 extremely terse and front-loaded, but it earns its place and nothing is wasteful. However, it may be too sparse to fully specify the tool, so I cannot give a perfect score given the lacking critical information for a safe invocation.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a successful close does, whether a session can be reopened, or how the input parameter should be obtained. An agent could not confidently invoke this correctly based only on this text.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'session' parameter at all. An agent gets no hint that this parameter likely holds the session identifier returned by ssh_shell_open. The single parameter is completely undocumented both by the schema and the description.

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 'Close interactive session' clearly states the action (close) and the resource (interactive session). It clearly differentiates from siblings like ssh_tunnel_close and ssh_disconnect, which affect different resources (tunnel vs. connection). Even though it omits the word 'shell', the context of the tool family makes the object unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ssh_disconnect or ssh_shell_send. It does not mention that this should be used after ssh_shell_open or what conditions call for it. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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