jane_app_close

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost consequence ('credits stop running'), which is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot convey, but it says nothing about what happens to in-progress work, whether the call is idempotent, or how it behaves if no session is active.

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?

One sentence, action first, rationale second, with no filler or redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter session-termination tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the billing motivation. The only real gap is state-loss and error behavior, which a cautious agent would still want before calling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty object schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Close the Jane App browser session'), which an agent can immediately distinguish from the sibling open/click/read/type tools by the word 'close' alone. It does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling, but the action 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?

'When the work is done' supplies a clear trigger condition for calling this tool, which is more than most zero-parameter lifecycle tools offer. It stops short of stating when not to call it or naming what to do instead if the session should stay open.

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