close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what is closed (named app or active session app) and the boundary with shutdown. However, it does not mention side effects like whether the app's state is saved or if any confirmation is required, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a close 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 two sentences, highly concise, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place, and it directly addresses the key decision point (when to use shutdown) without filler.

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 close operation, the description is functionally complete: it defines the action, the optional target, and the alternative tool for a related but distinct action. It lacks an explicit mention of return values or success criteria, but given the simplicity of the command and the absence of an output schema, this is acceptable. It could be improved by noting typical side effects, but it is not a major gap.

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 coverage is 96%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the 'app' parameter's optionality (omitted means active session app) and the 'shutdown' parameter's intended use, going beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'Close' with a clear resource: 'the named app' or 'the active session app when app is omitted.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'shutdown' by scoping the action to app closure only, making its purpose crystal clear.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool vs the alternative: 'Use shutdown only when the selected simulator or emulator should also stop.' It also clarifies the optional behavior when 'app is omitted,' giving the agent a clear decision framework.

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