close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important guard: the tool will only quit an instance this server started, implying a no-op or error otherwise. However, for a terminate operation it says nothing about unsaved state, whether the quit is graceful or forced, or what happens to in-flight work — gaps that matter for a mutation of this severity.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and qualifies it immediately. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a zero-parameter quit tool needs little more than what is given. The remaining shortfall is the absence of any note about unsaved data or what the caller should expect after a quit.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the empty schema is fully self-explanatory. Baseline 4 applies.

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 supplies a specific verb (quit) and resource (Pixel Composer) that the ambiguous name 'close' does not, and the conditional clause distinguishes it from every sibling, none of which terminate the application. It stops short of an explicit 'unlike X, use this when…' contrast, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

'if this server launched it' is a concrete precondition that tells the agent when this tool is applicable and implicitly when it is not (an externally launched instance). It does not name alternatives, but no sibling offers an equivalent action, so the context is clear without exclusions.

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