close_windows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: 'auto-wakes if asleep'. However, it does not mention other behaviors like whether all windows (including rear) are affected, potential failure modes, or reversibility. For a simple command tool, this is adequate but not detailed.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then the key behavioral note. This is an ideal length for a simple command tool.

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 simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It states the action and a relevant behavior (auto-wake). It could clarify that the sunroof is excluded (sibling close_sunroof exists), but that is inferable from the sibling list. Overall, sufficient for straightforward use.

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 all parameters already have meanings in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Closes all windows'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'vent_windows' (opens windows) and 'close_sunroof' (closes a different part). The scope is unambiguous.

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 implies usage when windows need to be closed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any preconditions. The auto-wake note provides some context, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings.

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