ro_close_dialog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, error conditions (e.g., what happens if no dialog is open), or whether closing is idempotent. The description essentially restates the tool name in a fuller sentence, adding no behavioral nuance beyond the obvious.

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, compact sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the action verb. Perfect for a tool this simple.

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's extreme simplicity (no params, no output schema, single action), the description might be sufficient. However, it omits any handling of edge cases (e.g., when no dialog is open) and provides no context about dialog-state dependencies. For a game automation tool, knowing whether close works without an open dialog could matter. It's adequate but not complete enough to be a strong contextual guide.

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, so the schema already conveys everything. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to document. The description's only job is to confirm the action, which it does adequately.

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 uses a clear verb ('Close') and specific resource ('currently open NPC dialog'), which differentiates it from siblings like ro_dialog_next (advance) or ro_menu_select (choose option). It is not a tautology; it adds the word 'currently' to indicate state. Slight deduction because it doesn't explicitly name a contrasting sibling, but the distinction is clear enough.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., 'only when a dialog is open'), and no exclusion criteria. The sibling list includes ro_dialog_next and ro_menu_select, but the description doesn't address when to close rather than advance or select. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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