close_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the notable behavior that the connection auto-reconnects on the next tool call, and clarifies the default host disconnection behavior. It does not reveal potential error conditions, but the core side effects are covered adequately.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a key behavioral note, and labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundant elaboration.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, key behavior (auto-reconnect), parameter semantics, and the return type (confirmation message). With an output schema present and simple scope, no further details are necessary for correct invocation.

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 input schema provides no description for the sole parameter host_name (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The Args section fully explains the parameter: 'Named host to disconnect; disconnects default host if omitted.' This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool's specific verb and resource: 'Close the SSH connection to a host.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'close_all_connections' by specifying that it targets a single ('a host') connection, with optional host_name for targeting.

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 explains the context of use by noting that the connection will be re-established automatically on the next tool call, which informs when closing is useful. It also explains the default behavior when host_name is omitted. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like close_all_connections, missing the 'when not to use' guidance.

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