disconnect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes that closing an already disconnected connection is not an error, which is a useful non-obvious behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects like resource cleanup or impact on other operations, but for a simple disconnect the key behavior is covered.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the one important edge case. No wasted words, and the key non-error condition is included. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 parameter-less, side-effect-simple action, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what happens (closes the connection) and that being already disconnected is not an error. It does not describe what happens to ongoing operations or resources, but such detail may be unnecessary for this tool's simplicity. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, this is adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already trivially covers 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameter-less tools.

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 states a specific verb ('Close') and a specific resource ('the current connection'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'connect' and other configuration tools. The purpose is 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context (a session lifecycle) implies it should be used after 'connect', but the description does not state this. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage timing to inference.

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