waveform_quit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the graceful-close behavior (WM_CLOSE) and 'politely' implies potential user cancellation for unsaved changes. However, it doesn't state error handling (e.g., if Waveform isn't running) or whether it waits for closure confirmation.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and mechanism with zero wasted words. Every element 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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and method. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could mention behavior when Waveform is not running, which is a minor 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage by definition). The description appropriately does not need to explain parameters, aligning with the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 the action ('close Waveform') and the resource (the application), distinguishing it from sibling tools like waveform_launch, waveform_focus, and waveform_locate. The mechanism (WM_CLOSE) adds specificity.

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 is obvious when to use this tool (to quit Waveform) given the context of sibling tools for launching and focusing. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the purpose is self-evident and the context is clear.

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