close_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it sends WM_CLOSE and may prompt the user to save. However, it does not specify whether the call blocks, what happens if the window handle is invalid, or whether it waits for the close to complete.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line action summary, a brief behavioral note, and a parameter definition. Every sentence serves a purpose with no 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?

For a simple single-param tool, the description covers the action and parameter adequately. Return behavior is absent but the output schema exists to fill that gap. Missing error-handling edge cases slightly reduce completeness, hence 4.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining 'hwnd: The window handle.' This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though the explanation is minimal and doesn't mention where to obtain the handle (e.g., list_windows).

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 'Gracefully close a window (sends WM_CLOSE)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing solely on the close action, unlike focus_window or set_window_state.

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 for closing windows but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., force-teminating a process). It mentions the application may prompt to save, giving some context, but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or alternatives.

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