Close Container / UI

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the specific no-op behavior ('Safe to call even if nothing is open') and enumerates the types of UIs affected (container, furnace, villager-trade). This goes beyond the structured hints and provides useful behavioral context.

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 two clear sentences with no filler. It leads with the primary function and follows with the safety note. Every word earns its place, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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 zero-parameter, idempotent utility tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, the scope of UI types, and the safe-to-call behavior. Nothing essential is missing.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools. The description correctly avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.

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 function: 'Closes whatever container, furnace, or villager-trade UI is currently open.' It specifies the verb (closes) and the resources (container/furnace/villager-trade UI), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like minecraft_open_container and minecraft_trade.

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 phrase 'Safe to call even if nothing is open' provides explicit guidance that this tool can be invoked unconditionally without prior state checks. It implies the primary use case—when a UI is open—and that no alternative is needed when nothing is open. It does not name alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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