sofa_close_session

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it closes the session, which implies a state change, and calls itself 'optional' to hint it is not mandatory. It fails to say whether this action is destructive, reversible, or has any side effects, leaving the agent without a clear model of the operation's impact.

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 a single tight sentence that front-loads the core action and its condition. Every word serves a purpose and there is no filler or repetition, making it an exemplary concise definition for such 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?

Given the tool is a trivial no-parameter, no-output close operation, the description covers most of the context needed to decide whether and when to call it. However, because there are no annotations to clarify side effects or require semantics, the caller is left to infer whether closing also terminates any processes or data handling.

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 and an empty schema, so description need not add parameter-level explanations. The baseline score of 4 for no parameters applies here because there is nothing left semantically undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'close' the 'current session'. The word 'optionally' adds mild ambiguity but still conveys the operation's core. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools by its unique focus on closing a session, even though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 provides a clear temporal condition, 'when finished', which implicitly tells the agent when to call the tool. However, it does not name alternatives, mention when not to use it, or elaborate on conditions that might make closing unnecessary. This is adequate but minimal guidance.

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