アプリ終了

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses only the core action (app termination) and omits potential side effects, reversibility, confirmation, or what happens to app state. This is minimal for a state-changing operation.

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 efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it does not carry much explanatory content.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the core action is stated and parameter constraints are provided by the schema. However, with no annotations or output schema, an agent still lacks guidance on behavioral expectations and when to choose this tool, leaving the definition minimally adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both appId and device are already documented in the schema, including the default-device resolution for device. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so 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?

The description '指定したアプリを終了する。' uses a specific verb (終了する/terminate) and a specific resource (specified app). This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools such as launch_app and get_current_app.

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 close_app versus alternatives, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer use from the name and sibling list.

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