typora_close

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

With no annotations, the description must carry disclosure, and it does state the graceful termination behavior, the Windows scope, and that omitting pid closes all Typora processes. However, it does not explain consequences for unsaved work, whether 'graceful' vs 'kill' differs, or what the tool returns, leaving a partial transparency gap.

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?

One sentence front-loads the primary action and then states the pid variant, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the action, platform, and pid-omitted behavior necessary to invoke it correctly. It omits optional caveats like unsaved-change handling, but the core call contract is sufficiently complete.

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 already documents pid as optional and the omitted-pid behavior, so description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating 'specific process ID' and 'by process ID.' With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair ('Gracefully terminate running Typora processes on Windows') and adds the pid-targeting mode, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like typora_open and typora_status.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and scope, but the description never names alternatives or says when not to use it. It lacks explicit routing vis-à-vis typora_status or typora_open.

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