disconnect

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

没有注释信息，描述承担了全部行为揭示的负担。但描述仅提及'关闭'，未提供对副作用、可逆性、影响范围（是对所有主机还是当前会话中的主机）的说明，也没有讨论权限要求或结果的回执。对于执行级别的操作，这样的描写过于简略。

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?

用一句话完成了完整的表述，直接而精确，没有冗余。既包含了动词和范围，又无需额外解释，结构上非常精炼。

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?

工具本身简单，且标记有输出schema，虽然描述没有一一列举返回值，但输入参数也均已覆盖，所以基本完整。缺少权限或错误状况的披露，但因为无任何注释，仍需一点补充才足够。

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?

参数模式（host）的覆盖率为100%，描述了'配置的主机名，或all'，与参数定义完全一致。描述没有添加额外的语义，但参数本身已清晰，因此按基准保留3分。

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?

描述明确了动词（关闭）和资源（SSH连接），并包含了'或所有'的范围，与其他兄弟工具（如list_hosts、check_connection）明显不同。虽然未明确提及其他工具，但基于动词和资源，意图足够清晰。

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?

描述没有提供何时使用此工具与替代工具，也没有明确排除其他情况。仅声明执行什么，未指明前置条件（如主机必须已配置）或哪些场景不适合，例如需要先检查连接。

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