close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds the 90s timeout, the fallback to the active session app, and the scope boundary between closing an app and shutting down a simulator/emulator. It does not describe failure behavior or side effects in detail, but the core behavior is transparent enough.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing useful work: the main action and fallback, the shutdown alternative, and the timeout. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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 20-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation decisions: which app to close, what happens when app is omitted, when to prefer shutdown, and the timeout. The generic selector parameters are well documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. Minor gaps remain around response shape and failure behavior.

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 about 95%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that app is optional and defaults to the active session app, and by framing shutdown as a separate operation rather than repeating schema text.

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 names the verb and resource precisely: close an app, or close the active session app when app is omitted. It also separates itself from the shutdown sibling by noting when shutdown should be used instead, so an agent can distinguish close from nearby tools like open, apps, and shutdown.

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 second sentence gives explicit routing guidance: use shutdown only when the selected simulator or emulator should also stop. This directly addresses the most likely alternative to close and tells the agent exactly when to choose it, with no inference required.

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