关闭受控 ENVI 会话

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, this description discloses essential behavior: graceful shutdown by default, retention on unsaved prompts, and force=true override. This enriches the raw annotation with operational nuance, which is exactly what the description should provide.

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 sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every clause adds value. No redundant phrases or filler.

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, annotations, and output schema, the description covers the primary flow and force mode well. The only gap is timeout_seconds behavior, which is a notable omission for a tool with only three parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains force=true's impact, but does not explain session_id or timeout_seconds. The timeout semantics are entirely missing, leaving a significant parameter unexplained.

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 states it closes only a specified ENVI process started by this service, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like launch, health check, and menu invocation by emphasizing the 'only' scope and managed process.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to close a managed ENVI session. The '只' (only) constraint sets boundaries, but there is no explicit alternative or when-not-to-use guidance. It provides a clear context without explicit exclusions.

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