kill_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Chiude" implies a destructive mutation, yet nothing is said about irreversibility, required permissions, effects on the parent session, or whether other windows are affected.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Brevity here removes required information rather than compressing it.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and return values need no explanation, a destructive three-parameter tool with zero annotation and zero schema coverage needs far more than four words. Nothing about identity of the target window, safety, or consequences is conveyed.

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?

All three parameters (alias, session, window_id) have 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no meaning for any of them. It does not clarify how window_id is obtained, whether session scopes the lookup, or what alias identifies.

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?

"Chiude una finestra" states a verb and resource, so the general action (close a window) is clear. However, it gives no scope, no identification of which window, and nothing that distinguishes it from siblings such as kill_session, kill_server, or new_window/rename_window, leaving the agent to infer fit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus kill_session or kill_server, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens to the session afterward. The description offers nothing an agent can act on for routing decisions.

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