close_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'Close a window' without disclosing safety, error handling, or prerequisites beyond the ID. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or potential issues.

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 extremely concise with two sentences and a parameter line. No wasted words; the purpose is front-loaded. This is ideal for quick scanning.

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 simplicity and lack of annotations, the description omits important context such as return values (though output schema exists), error behavior, and confirmation status. This is insufficient for robust agent usage.

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 description adds minimal meaning to the parameter 'window_id' beyond the schema's title, stating 'The window ID to close.' With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not provide format, source, or validation 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 'Close a window' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like minimize_window or move_window. However, it does not elaborate on the exact behavior (e.g., confirmation, saving state), so it loses a point for lack of specificity.

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 description advises using windows() to get the window ID first, providing a prerequisite. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like minimize_window or close via other means, leaving some ambiguity.

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