close_roof

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

The description reveals no behavioral details beyond the basic action. It does not mention whether the command is synchronous, potential delays, safety considerations, or failure modes. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal insight.

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?

A single nine-word sentence that directly states the action. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is minimally adequate for a simple one-parameter tool, but it lacks contextual information about prerequisites (device connectivity), expected behavior, or distinctions from nearby tools. It leaves the agent to infer operational details.

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 schema fully documents the single 'ip' parameter with a clear description (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, yielding the baseline score.

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 a specific action ('Close the observatory roof') on a specific resource ('DragonLAIR device'), distinguishing it from siblings like open_roof and abort_roof by its verb. It is not a tautology and provides a precise, actionable purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like open_roof or abort_roof. The usage is only implied by the verb 'close', but the description lacks any context, prerequisites, or explicit exclusions.

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